Threat abatement plan for predation by
the European red fox (2008)
Five yearly review
2013
1
PURPOSE OF REVIEW
Under section 279 of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, the
Minister must review each threat abatement plan at intervals of not longer than five years, and
consider whether a variation of the plan is necessary. The threat abatement plan for predation
by the European red fox was made by the Minister in 2008.
Reviewing threat abatement plans, at least every five years, allows for an assessment of
whether the threat has been abated or, if not, what progress has been made towards abating
the threat. It is acknowledged that some key actions listed in threat abatement plans may take
longer than five years to achieve, such as research into the development of new toxins and
baiting methods. The review of a threat abatement plan assesses progress and effectiveness
of progress across all actions in the threat abatement plan. It also considers progress towards
threat abatement in associated ways, such as related work done through recovery plans for
specific species. Finally it also considers if the threatened species are still being threatened
by the subject of the threat abatement plan.
2
Contents
Purpose of review ................................................................................................................2
Executive Summary .............................................................................................................5
Introduction ........................................................................................................................7
Objectives of the threat abatement plan ..............................................................................8
Objective One ......................................................................................................................8
Offshore islands .................................................................................................................................. 9
Case study 1.1 Middle Island, Victoria .............................................................................................. 9
Case study 1.2 Phillip Island, Victoria .............................................................................................. 10
Mainland islands............................................................................................................................... 11
Conclusion................................................................................................................................. 13
Objective Two.................................................................................................................... 15
Case studies 2.1 High priority areas for threatened species management ..................................... 16
Conclusion................................................................................................................................. 18
Objective Three ................................................................................................................. 19
Action 3.1 Monitoring ...................................................................................................................... 19
Action 3.2 Predator interactions - native carnivores ....................................................................... 21
Action 3.3 Predator interactions - Feral cats, wild dogs and rabbits ............................................... 23
Action 3.4 Unintended effects from fox control .............................................................................. 25
Case study 3.1 Booderee National Park fox control program .......................................................... 26
Action 3.5 Estimating the environmental and other associated costs............................................. 27
Conclusion................................................................................................................................. 28
Objective Four ................................................................................................................... 28
Action 4.1 Research into effectiveness, target specificity and humaneness ................................... 29
Action 4.2 Further work on improvements to control techniques .................................................. 30
Action 4.3 Information on exclusion fence designs and other control methods ............................. 32
Action 4.4 Investigate the feasibility of control techniques to target foxes but not dingoes. ......... 32
Action 4.5 Develop training programs to help land managers identify locally appropriate control
methods and when to apply them. .................................................................................................. 33
Action 4.6 Ensure habitat rehabilitation and management of potential prey, competitors and
predators of foxes are considered in fox management programs................................................... 33
Action 4.7 Continues to promote the adoption of model codes of practice and standard operating
procedures. ...................................................................................................................................... 34
Conclusion................................................................................................................................. 34
Objective Five .................................................................................................................... 35
Formal training for stakeholders ...................................................................................................... 36
Cross tenure or group management programs ................................................................................ 36
Other promotion .............................................................................................................................. 37
Conclusion................................................................................................................................. 37
Conclusion on the threat abatement plan .......................................................................... 39
Looking forward ................................................................................................................ 39
3
Works Cited ....................................................................................................................... 42
Appendices ........................................................................................................................ 49
Appendix A: Islands with foxes ................................................................................................... 49
Appendix B: High priority offshore islands with foxes ................................................................ 57
Appendix C: Caring for our Country projects with a fox component ............................................. 58
Appendix D: Biodiversity Fund projects with a fox component .................................................... 76
Appendix E: EPBC Act listed threatened species ......................................................................... 78
4
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The threat abatement plan for predation by the European red fox has a goal of minimising the
impact of foxes on biodiversity in Australia and its territories. This goal has not been met in
the last five years, excepting in some small scale areas. However, significant improvements
have been made in the strategic approach to fox control and improving non-target risks and
welfare issues.
The first objective of the threat abatement plan focuses on high conservation value areas or
‘islands’ for control. This asset protection approach has been adopted across Australia. New
South Wales’ fox threat abatement plan prioritises areas for threatened species control. There
have been a number of predator-proof fenced sanctuaries built in the last five years for
threatened species protection. There are now a number of companies in both Australia and
New Zealand servicing this market. This is an effective means of protecting small threatened
species most at risk from predation by foxes, but it is expensive and resource intensive.
Fortunately foxes are only found on a small number of offshore islands and there are
examples where eradication has been achieved or is underway. The biggest island
eradication program underway is for Tasmania. This is a long-term program attempting to
eradicate foxes that are established but not in high densities. The program has driven new
developments in detection methods and analytical techniques such as DNA analysis of scats.
At the time of this review, the program was commencing stage three which is focused on
targeted surveillance. Maintaining public support for a program where there is little physical
evidence is a tremendous challenge for the Tasmanian fox eradication program.
Linked with the concept of asset protection for fox control programs is the maintenance and
recovery of threatened native species and ecological communities. Land managers are
applying the actions set out objective 2 and are establishing cross-tenure programs for fox
management, monitoring the outcomes for adaptation of the program, and using incentives.
There are examples where fox control programs are specifically instigated for the protection of
species such as rock wallabies, malleefowl and penguins.
The Invasive Animals Cooperative Research Centre’s 2005-12 research program made
important steps in improving knowledge and understanding of the foxes’ ecological role in
Australia. Research into monitoring techniques together with improvements in technology
such as remote cameras has led to reliable monitoring techniques; studies into the interactions
with other invasive predators and the effects of controlling one invasive species’ impact on
other species has improved knowledge (although also raised many other questions); and
projects have also explored the unintended consequences of fox control. It should be noted
that there are also researchers not associated with the Invasive Animals Cooperative
Research Centre who have contributed to this knowledge.
We have superior tools to control foxes compared to five years ago. An improved, more
humane bait will shortly be available for control. New tools are also in the product ‘pipeline’
from the Invasive Animals Cooperative Research Centre such as a target specific lethal
control device, and a toxic spray tunnel unit.
A national training package for the control of invasive species has been registered and there
are a few, although insufficient, providers for this education. Detailed educational material as
well as general material have been developed by the Invasive Animals Cooperative Research
Centre and are available in a variety of media from web pages, fact sheets, reports and
videos.
5
The review has established that significant work has been done to improve our ability to
control foxes. However, in the last five years, an additional 27 species have been added to
the threatened species lists under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation
Act 1999 (EPBC Act) where foxes are identified as a threat. While acknowledging that foxes
may not be the major threat for some of these species, this does indicate that there is still
much to be done before we can be confident that we are able to manage foxes to minimise
their impact. As such, this review recommends that a threat abatement plan or alternative
threat abatement strategy is still required to manage predation by the European red fox.
6
INTRODUCTION
The European red fox is identified readily by many Australians as a significant predator of
small native animals and also of lambs, goat kids and poultry. Foxes will take many different
native animals, particularly small to medium-sized ground-dwelling and semi-arboreal
mammals, ground-nesting birds and chelid tortoises (Department of the Environment, Water,
Heritage and the Arts, 2008). Foxes became established in the 1870’s and have now spread
across most of Australia except the tropics, and are still establishing and spreading in
Tasmania.
Foxes were identified in previous legislation as a threat and predation by the European fox
was listed as a key threatening process on the commencement of the EPBC Act. A threat
abatement plan was made in 1999. The 2008 threat abatement plan replaced this original
threat abatement plan.
Foxes have a significant impact on primary production. Damage is estimated at $227 million
per year (Gong et al. 2009) and this has prompted significant investment in control methods by
industry bodies, cooperative research centres and agricultural agencies. In the last five years
in particular the Invasive Animals Cooperative Research Centre has invested significantly with
its first phase of funding aimed at new knowledge, a new toxin and toxin delivery methods, and
improved management packages to reduce the cost to Australia by $29 million. The Invasive
Animals Cooperative Research Centre has done this in partnership with most Australian
governments and the Australian Wool Innovation Ltd. While this research has primarily been
focused on reducing the impacts on agriculture, the outcomes have direct applicability to
conservation needs, and in many cases, on-ground action for foxes such as baiting needs to
be done on a nil-tenure basis so will encompass farms and conservation lands.
Governments are also investing in fox control for biodiversity through broad-scale programs
(e.g. Southern Ark in Victoria and Western Shield in Western Australia), although the quantum
of funding for this is unknown.
7
OBJECTIVES OF THE THREAT ABATEMENT PLAN
The goal of the threat abatement plan is to minimise the impact of foxes on biodiversity in
Australia and its territories by: protecting affected native species and ecological communities,
and preventing further species and ecological communities from becoming threatened. This
section of the review considers each of the objectives of the threat abatement plan and what
work or management has occurred in each of the areas since 2008.
Each objective has subsidiary actions. In this review not all of the actions are analysed in
depth as this is likely to lead to significant repetition and gaps in the review, but rather there is
detail where appropriate and discussion of progress made towards each objective where the
information or progress is broader.
OBJECTIVE ONE
The objective of prevent foxes occupying new areas in Australia and eradicate foxes from
high-conservation-value ‘islands’.
Actions
1.1 Collate data on offshore islands and isolated mainland ‘islands’,
assess their conservation value, the likelihood of significant biodiversity
impacts from foxes and, if there are no foxes present, rank the level of
risk of foxes being introduced and establishing populations.
High priority, short term
1.2 Develop management plans to prevent, monitor and, if incursions
occur, contain and eradicate any fox incursion, for ‘islands’ with high
conservation values.
High priority, medium
term
1.3 Implement management plans for high-conservation-value ‘islands’,
including prevention and monitoring actions, and containment or
eradication actions if incursions occur.
Very high priority,
medium term
1.4 Eradicate established populations of foxes from ‘islands’ with high
conservation values (including Tasmania) where this is cost-effective,
feasible and a conservation priority.
Very high priority,
medium to long term
Performance indicators:
 No further establishment of foxes on offshore islands or in other fox-free areas.
 Successful eradication of isolated populations of foxes where this is attempted.
 Increased populations of affected native species in areas from which foxes, and other
invasive species have been eradicated, subject to interrelated issues.
This objective is focused on the concept that foxes, and other vertebrate pests including
rabbits, cats and goats, cannot be eradicated from mainland Australia. It is also not feasible
from a monetary and logistical aspect to control foxes over their entire range. Therefore, it is
essential for biodiversity conservation that important sites are identified where fox control can
effectively be undertaken and that this will produce the desired outcomes for threatened
species and other populations of native species at risk from fox predation. This concept has
been encapsulated in the term ‘island’ which can be either a physical offshore island or a
patch of mainland that has some geographical or physical feature to separate it from the
surrounding country.
8
Offshore islands
Foxes are present on 48 islands around Australia according to the Feral Animals on Offshore
Islands database (Australian Government Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water,
Population and Communities, 2012). The database also lists another 10 islands from which
foxes have been eradicated and many of these islands are very close to the mainland with
easy access for animals. The islands and details are listed at Appendix A. This is a very
small portion of the total offshore islands around Australia and provides opportunities for
utilisation of fox-free islands as refuges for native animals.
Ecosure (2009) undertook a desktop analysis of Australian Government offshore island
databases of feral animals and threatened species. This study prioritised the islands that
showed greater biodiversity value and identified where feral animals were a problem. This
included foxes. Fifteen islands out of the top 100 islands greater than 200 hectares were
identified with foxes present and these are listed in Appendix B. Only one of these islands
(Phillip Island) was identified as having an island specific plan to manage foxes. Other islands
that come under broader national park management or similar arrangements have a generic
invasive species, or fox, management plan.
Most of the islands where foxes are present in Australia are accessible. This is either by
causeways at low tide or by very short distances between the island and the mainland or
between multiple islands. The value of undertaking control for foxes on islands is recognised
by stakeholders including state and territory governments, councils, and coastal management
groups. Nesting shorebirds such as shearwaters and penguins can benefit from strategically
timed fox (and cat and dog) control. While foxes are able to re-invade these islands, the
removal of foxes and then putting in place control measures to control movement or manage
the foxes that do get back onto the islands is valuable. It is a similar concept to a fenced
mainland area where ongoing fence maintenance is required along with checks to ensure
breaches are not made. In the case of an accessible offshore island, the ‘fence’ is a
causeway, channel or other natural barrier.
Two case studies below provide examples from Victoria of bird protection. The first is the use
of a maremma dog to deter foxes and the second is an eradication program with control for
immigration.
Case study 1.1 Middle Island, Victoria
Middle Island is an important little penguin nesting site. Foxes are able to access the island at
low tide via a causeway and have also been sighted swimming across to the island. Fox
predation saw the little penguin population drop from 600 birds in 1999 to four breeding pairs
in 2006 when a control program for foxes and dogs commenced. The Warrnambool City
Council now uses maremma guard dogs on a seasonal basis to protect the birds from foxes
and other dogs, by chasing away any that attempt to come to the island. The guard dogs have
stopped fox predation, which is allowing the penguins to slowly rebuild the colony
(Warrnambool City Council, 2013).
Middle Island was not ranked in the top 100 islands for biodiversity value in Australia by
Ecosure (2009). However, the values of the birds on the island have been sufficient for this
island to be prioritised at a state level. This provides a good example of where a broad
approach to evaluating biodiversity across all nationally listed threats and threatened species
9
may not link closely with what is considered important to protect at a regional or local level in
addition to national priorities.
Case study 1.2 Phillip Island, Victoria
Phillip Island in Victoria has a long-term fox control program to prevent the predation of the
little penguin (Eudyptula minor), short-tailed shearwater (Ardenna tenuirostris) and hooded
plover (Thinornis rubricollis). Foxes were first reported on the island in 1907 and have been
able to access the island via a road bridge since 1947. A coordinated program has been
underway since 2006 to eradicate the fox from the island with the initial knockdown to
approximately 10% of the original estimated population being achieved in 2011 (Invasive
Animals Cooperative Research Centre, 2012). A long-term program is now needed to remove
the remainder of the population and achieve eradication.
Berry and Kirkwood (2010) used DNA from dead foxes on the island to understand the genetic
and demographic information of the island foxes. They determined that there is a migration
rate to the island of approximately one fox every five years and that most of the population on
the island is reproducing without any external immigration (95%). The number of foxes
actually breeding was very low. The breeding foxes were the dominant vixens and reynards
(male foxes), so as the control program removed some of these dominant foxes the breeding
population was actually ‘released’ and more foxes were able to breed. Berry and Kirkwood
(2010) suggest that the program needs to continue to focus predominantly on reducing the
number of the foxes on the island.
The challenge with eradication on a large populated island is to convince all of the community
to participate in the program over a long period of time, especially once the foxes are no
longer in abundance and not visible to the landholders (Invasive Animals Cooperative
Research Centre, 2012). An additional challenge for Phillip Island is the enormous tourist
population over the summer months as 1080 baiting cannot be undertaken while there are that
many more people with pet dogs present. Further details of this case study are contained in
the cited factsheet from the Invasive Animals Cooperative Research Centre’s PestSmart
toolkit.
As well as managing or eradicating foxes from islands where they are present in Australia, it is
also important to prevent new establishments. Kangaroo Island, South Australia, is a habited
island where there is a regular ferry service and other transportation between the mainland
and the island. The Kangaroo Island Natural Resource Management board has a biosecurity
plan which aims to keep Kangaroo Island free of foxes and other pests.
In terms of the performance indicators for this objective, the available data (e.g. Australian
Government Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities,
2012) does not provide information post-2008. However, the information contained in this
database and with the analysis by Ecosure (2009) suggest that the foxes currently identified
on offshore islands have probably accessed these islands for many years. As such the first
performance indicator of no further establishments on offshore islands has probably been met.
The second performance indicator, of successful eradication of isolated populations of foxes
where this is attempted, has two examples of action. The first case study – Middle Island –
demonstrates a successful eradication and increased breeding of penguins is the positive
10
outcome. The second case study - Phillip Island – showcases a program which is headed in
the right direction to eradicate the fox and is likely to show a positive outcome too if
successful. As such, this performance indicator has also been met but it is noted that this is
an open-ended performance indicator and more can always be done.
The third performance indicator can only be measured, for offshore islands, by the fox
eradication from Middle Island. The increased breeding of penguins demonstrated how
performance indicator three can be met. It would be inappropriate to indicate that this
performance indicator has been met however, with foxes still present on 48 islands and
predating on native fauna.
Mainland islands
There are two types of ‘mainland island’. Firstly there are a number of areas around Australia
that have reserves that are specifically fenced to prevent predators entering the reserve.
These include Lorna Glen in Western Australia (10.8 km2); Arid Recovery in South Australia
(60 km2); Nangeen Hill Nature Reserve, Western Australia (5 km long fence); Mullligans Flat
Woodland Sanctuary in the Australian Capital Territory (4.5 km2); Scotia Sanctuary in New
South Wales (120 km2); Yookamurra in South Australia (10 km2) and Karakamia in Western
Australia (2.75 km2). All of these areas are small in comparison to the potential habitat for the
species being protected and require huge resources to maintain the fence, control predators
around the fence to reduce pressure from predators testing the fence, and continuously
monitor for potential incursions. All of these ‘islands’ or fenced areas have detailed
management plans that meet all the actions under objective one of developing and
implementing management plans for these sites.
Secondly, there are identified areas where continuous, intensive control is undertaken for
foxes and other predators to keep numbers at a sufficiently low level to allow the recovery of
native species. This work must be ongoing, and hence expensive, as there will be continuous
immigration from surrounding areas. These sites tend to be focused on a threatened species
program (e.g. for rock wallabies, mallee fowl, southern brown bandicoot) or a community
action group to protect livestock. These sites can only cater for threatened species that can
cope with a degree of predation.
The objective also mentions the need to ensure that foxes remain absent from areas that they
currently do not occupy, including the northern edge of their distribution. Currently there are
no formal monitoring sites but the community based feralscan website (www.feralscan.org.au)
provides an informal monitoring tool. To date (October 2013) this database has two “very low
numbers seen” sites in northern Queensland that are outside of the currently mapped range of
the fox. Therefore, it is concluded that performance indicator one of no further establishment
of foxes on offshore islands or in other fox-free areas has been met. It is unlikely that this is
due to any human intervention but rather unsuitable habitat and/or climate.
In the paragraphs below examples from state programs are described where areas are
identified as important sites for conservation and predation by foxes is a threat.
The New South Wales Threat abatement plan for predation by the red fox (NSW DECCW,
2010) has identified key threatened species at risk and then considered prime areas for
conservation of these species. The plan also looks at what makes key fox habitat – such as
their preference for open agricultural spaces to dense forest, and their use of tracks in forests.
The plan identifies 57 sites, some of which are adjacent to each other, where fox control
should be undertaken. The plan also has an additional nine sites where it is recommended
11
that no baiting be undertaken but monitoring of fox and native species populations be done as
a control site to compare with the baited areas. The sites for control were selected because of
the threatened species at the site for which targeted fox control would be an important element
in their recovery. Many of these are shorebirds and the distribution of the 57 baited sites also
reflects this, but the species also include the brush-tailed rock wallaby, long-nosed potoroo,
the mallee fowl and the brolga. The NSW threat abatement plan has a control group who
oversee the success of the site plans and make recommendations, and a technical reference
group who oversee the science and provide adaptive management recommendations. These
groups make it possible for the NSW Government to track the change achieved by
management.
The Queensland Government has identified the bridled nail-tailed wallaby as requiring
intensive fox management to maintain its populations in their restricted habitat ‘islands’. This
is a long-term program which commenced in 1997. It includes habitat management and a
captive breeding population (Wildlife Queensland, 2013).
Western Australia has taken a larger area approach with the Western Shield animal
conservation program run by the Western Australian Department of Parks and Wildlife. This
program has recognised the severe decline in native species’ populations in Western Australia
and that this can be partially attributed to predation by foxes and cats (Department of
Environment and Conservation, 2013). Western Shield's fox and feral cat baiting program
covers nearly 3.9 million hectares of public and private land across the state, from Cape Arid
east of Esperance to the Burrup Peninsula near Karratha. It includes the forests of the southwest, rangeland sites and numerous wheat belt reserves.
The Red Card for Rabbits and Foxes community program is a coordinated baiting and
shooting program for foxes and rabbits across the south-west of Western Australia (Red Card
for Rabbits and Foxes program, 2013). The largest part of the Red Card program is the
community baiting programs. Each year local groups coordinate their baiting so that the
maximum impact can be achieved. While this program has an agricultural focus there are
benefits to biodiversity in a broad-scale baiting program.
Victoria has the regional programs of Southern Ark (Department of Environment and Primary
Industries, 2013), Glenelg Ark (Department of Environment and Primary Industries, 2013) and
Grampians Ark that are specifically targeting the fox. The programs are collaborative,
landscape scale approaches to fox management that aim to protect small native mammals,
birds and reptiles from fox attacks. The program involves two key government agencies – the
Department of Environment and Primary Industries and Parks Victoria. While the focus is on
protecting public land, there is also a community baiting program underway on neighbouring
private land through the “good neighbour” program.
The Southern Ark program started in 2003 as a continuation of an earlier program and in 2008
started phase two which aims to bait the entire Far East Gippsland area with buried baits for
foxes. Baits are buried in a six-week rotation over the entire year. The Glenelg Ark is having
success with increases in long-nosed potoroos and southern brown bandicoots through fox
baiting (Robley et al., 2012). The Grampians Ark program is focused on the brush-tailed rock
wallaby and operates over 250,000 hectares. The fox baiting is both on public land and on
private land via support for a community baiting program. The Grampians Ark program is
proving the success of fox baiting through a reduction of 30-50 % in fox activity and the
breeding of released wallabies in 2010. Subject to funding these programs are ongoing.
12
South Australia has the Bounceback program, part of which is undertaking fox control to help
the yellow-footed rock wallaby. The Bounceback program (Department of Environment, Water
and Natural Resources, 2013) has been running for 20 years and includes pest animal and
weed control as well as other recovery actions for native flora and fauna. The trigger for the
commencement of the program was the local extinction of critical weight range (less than 3 kg)
species such as the brush-tailed bettong and a need for an integrated approach for
management of both the threats and other recovery actions. This program is focused on the
semi-arid Flinders and Olary bioregions with a focus on the Flinders Range and Gammon
Range National Parks and surrounding stations. The program baits 5500 km2 for foxes in
winter and late summer via ground and aerial baiting. Monitoring of foxes in the baited area
now shows one fox per 100 km of spotlighting transect whereas outside the baited area has
approximately 10 foxes per 100 km.
In northern South Australia the Alinytjara Wilurara Natural Resource Management board is
combining the use of a 100 hectare predator-proof enclosure (island) with a captive breeding
program to rebuild the population of the vulnerable Warru or black-flanked rock wallaby
(Petrogale lateralis). Foxes are considered to be the major threat to the Warru (Department of
Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, 2013). With this project,
captive bred warru from Monarto Zoo are placed in the predator-proof enclosure for ‘hardening
off’ to free living without the immediate pressure of potential fox predation.
As well as these large-scale programs, local governments and regions will also identify their
own priority areas requiring protection. An example of this is case studies 1.1 and 1.2 above.
Tasmania has an eradication program to remove foxes from the island/state (Department of
Primary Industries, Parks, Water and the Environment, 2013). The second stage of the four
stage program involved strategic baiting of highly suitable fox habitat between 2010 and 2013.
Following a review of the Fox Eradication Program in late 2012 (Kitchell et al. 2013), the
Tasmanian Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment undertook a
change in focus. Since June 2013 the focus has shifted to strategic landscape monitoring and
surveillance activity predominantly using detector dogs, and responding to any detection of fox
activity.
These state examples demonstrate how mainland areas or “islands” can be identified and fox
management put in place. The fenced ‘island’ reserves demonstrate the achievement of
performance indicators two and three in successfully eradicating foxes from the area and
increasing numbers of threatened species within the reserves. The other identified mainland
areas experience continual immigration of foxes from outside the site meaning performance
indicator two cannot be met but ongoing monitoring is demonstrating it is possible to meet
performance indicator three of increased populations of affected native species.
Conclusion
We know well where foxes are in Australia. There has been some slow northwards expansion
of their range in the Northern Territory and possibly also in Queensland and Western Australia
compared to the distribution map presented in the background document to the 2008 threat
abatement plan (reference NLWRA, 2007). It is not possible to control foxes across their
entire range, especially in remote areas. Therefore it is not practical to prevent any
northwards range expansion other than at key identified sites.
The identification of assets – ‘islands’ – of high biodiversity value where fox management
should be undertaken has been done at a national, state and local government level. The
13
Australian Government has produced two reports respectively identifying offshore and
mainland islands of high value; state and territory governments have identified and
implemented programs for areas identified through threat abatement plans or regional
programs; and some local governments have identified the assets they wish to protect in their
jurisdiction.
The review has identified that, where fox management is being undertaken in fenced mainland
reserves (‘islands’) or identified areas, the performance indicator has been met for increasing
populations of affected native species.
All the programs highlighted in this objective have management plans that include monitoring
to determine the reduction in fox numbers and/or impact. The NSW threat abatement plan
and the Victorian Glenelg Ark have taken this concept a further step to put in place control
sites to measure changes that might be occurring regardless of the fox baiting program. The
South Australian Bounceback program also measures the reduction in fox numbers through
spotlighting inside and outside the baited area. This will provide an immediate indication of the
potential for biodiversity outcomes even if the species that is being protected (e.g. the yellowfooted rock wallaby) is slow to recover. The other government programs also have an
emphasis on monitoring outcomes for their targeted threatened species.
So, in conclusion, we know where the priorities for fox control are and implementation of
management plans is occurring. However, the other element of objective one – that is to
eradicate foxes from high conservation value islands – has not been achieved and is only
likely to occur in small isolated locations where there are fences or effective means to prevent
immigration in the long term. Therefore, it is suggested that this objective needs to be
amended.
14
OBJECTIVE TWO
The objective of promote maintenance and recovery of threatened species and ecological
communities that are affected by fox predation.
Actions
2.1 Identify priority areas for fox control based on:
 the significance of the population of the affected native species or of the
ecological community
 the degree of threat posed by foxes to species and ecological communities
relative to other threats
 the cost-effectiveness of maintaining fox populations below an identified
‘damage threshold’ in the region, and
 the feasibility of effective remedial action.
2.2 Conduct and monitor regional fox control, through new or existing programs,
in priority areas identified in Action 2.1.
2.3 Apply incentives (other than bounties), partnerships and negotiated
agreements to promote and maintain on-ground fox control on private or
leasehold lands within or adjacent to priority sites identified in Action 2.1.
High priority,
medium term
High priority, long
term
Medium priority,
medium term
Performance indicators:
 Priority areas, where fox control is required to protect important affected fauna, have been
identified and are a focus of fox control programs.
 Fox control work involves pre and post-control monitoring of fox populations and key native
species targeted for protection, according to national protocols, to measure the outcomes
of control operations.
 Reliable native species population indicators are used to measure the outcome of reduced
pest populations.
The threat abatement plan outlines the need for the maintenance and recovery of threatened
species and ecological communities to occur in the identified priority areas – as per objective
one – because it is not possible to control foxes across all of Australia.
In identifying priority species – and hence priority areas – at a national level, the EPBC Act
listing of threatened species and ecological communities identifies key threats. Since 2008,
predation by foxes has been identified as a threat for an additional 27 species, bringing the
total to 103 species.
Table 1: Number of threatened species that may be affected by predation by foxes.
Birds
TAP threatened species
that may be affected
Non-listed species that
may be affected (in
TAP)
Additional SPRAT*
database threatened
species
14
35 (Botaurus poiciloptilus
9
now listed as endangered)
Mammals
Reptiles
Amphibians
Total
48
12
2
76
2
0
0
37
8
7
3
27
*Species Profiles and Threats database (Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population
and Communities, 2012).
It should be noted that some of these newly identified species threatened by foxes are those
that may be adversely affected rather than definitely identified in all cases. Of the threatened
species listed, there are recovery plans for 31 species and 12 of these identify predation by
15
foxes as a major threat. Four plans indicate predation by foxes is secondary to another key
threat. It is noted that none of the newly identified species have recovery plans. The updated
list of threatened species and associated information is in Appendix E.
It can be difficult to measure changes occurring against the outcomes of recovery plans for
threatened species between updates of plans. As such it has not been possible to make any
assessment as to whether any of the recovery plan actions have changed the degree of threat
to any particular species. However, specific projects such as Wheeler and Priddle’s (2009)
work with the malleefowl provide the best indication of progress where c lose monitoring of
both ground and aerial baiting outcomes has occurred since the start of the program in 1996.
Monitoring determined that thrice-yearly aerial baiting for foxes was more effective than
intensive ground baiting, and they were also able to demonstrate the increased pressure on
the malleefowl from feral cats following suppression of foxes.
Case study one gives six examples of areas identified at a state or regional level where foxes
need to be controlled for threatened species protection.
Case studies 2.1 High priority areas for threatened species management
South Australia, under its natural resources management legislation, has funded Conservation
Volunteers Australia to reduce fox populations in and around the Brookfield Conservation Park
to protect malleefowl (Natural Resources South Australia, 2013).
South Australia has also funded the Anangu Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara for ecological
management that includes control and monitoring of feral animals (Natural Resources South
Australia, 2013).
Western Australia uses a mix of predator control in open spaces to maintain threatened
species’ populations, and small fenced islands for specific breeding programs. The black
flanked rock wallaby is now restricted to the central wheat belt and is vulnerable to predation
by foxes and cats, and competition from rabbits. The Wheatbelt NRM group has been
supported to implement coordinated pest animal control activities (WA State NRM Office,
2013).
Wadderin Sanctuary is a 430 hectare predator-free island in the central wheat belt, Western
Australia where three threatened mammals (red-tailed phascogale, woylie, quenda), one
threatened bird (malleefowl) and three other species (brushtail possum, western brush wallaby
and bush stone curlew) have been introduced. Funding from the Western Australian
Government provides for regular inspection and maintenance of the fence as well as baiting
for foxes and cats as required (WA State NRM Office, 2013), (Wildlife Research Management,
2011).
Karakamia Wildlife Sanctuary is a 275 hectare predator-free island in a Jarrah forest close to
Perth, Western Australia. The Australian Wildlife Conservancy is maintaining the 2.4 metre
high barrier and electric fence for foxes and cats. They have introduced woylie, quenda,
tammar wallaby, western ringtail possum, quokka and numbat (WA State NRM Office, 2013),
(Australian Wildlife Conservancy, no date).
A 400 hectare predator-free island has been established in the Perup Nature Reserve near
Manjimup, Western Australia specifically for the woylie.
16
The examples from state and territory programs indicate that local and regional groups are
identifying threatened species which require intervention to protect them from fox predation
and undertaking control programs – either on-ground suppression or, in the case of at least
three sites in Western Australia, building fenced reserves into which the threatened species
can be safely released. Community groups such as the Wheatbelt NRM group in the central
wheat belt have developed ways to coordinate action across land tenures for biodiversity
outcomes.
The other important aspect identified in the plan is the need to control foxes beyond the
boundary of the identified priority area to slow the immigration of foxes following a period of fox
control.
The first performance indicator (relating to identifying and managing priority areas for fox
control programs) has been met as demonstrated from the examples above. However, this is
not a one-off exercise and this action of identifying priority areas and making the associated
assessments of threat, effectiveness and feasibility is ongoing.
Monitoring, as is identified as part of action 2.2, is essential to understand the success of the
control program and to maintain the benefits gained from the control.
The Australian Government Caring for our Country program (Australian Government, 2013)
included a call for proposals, in all funding rounds, for projects that incorporate invasive
species management for vertebrate pests. Foxes are included in this broader category.
Appendix C lists all the projects funded that either target foxes or have a component of fox
management within a broader project. While it is not possible to quantify exactly the Caring for
our Country investment in fox management, these projects total a significant investment of
$23 million from 2008-2013.
The Australian Government Biodiversity Fund (Department of Sustainability, Environment,
Water, Population and Communities, 2013) also recognises that in helping land managers
store carbon, enhance biodiversity and build greater environmental resilience across the
Australian landscape, pest animal control is an important element. Seven large, multi-year
projects have been funded that have an element of fox control. Appendix D lists these
projects. As with the Caring for our Country projects, the fox management element is not
listed separately so is a component of the $5.34 million invested in projects since 2011-12.
Both of these funding programs require proponents to undertake monitoring and evaluation as
a key component of project management (Australian Government, 2013). As such, this meets
the second performance indicator for objective two. The monitoring may comprise a before
and after fox abundance measurement or, the preferable but more difficult, monitoring of
native species’ population response. A challenge for the proponents and for the program is in
the dissemination of monitoring information. Only a few of the projects have publicly
accessible reports.
State and territory governments have incentive programs to promote the recovery of
threatened species and ecological communities as well as providing funding programs for local
groups undertaking specific work targeted at protecting species. Objective one provides some
of the broad-scale programs and below are examples of specific species programs. These
examples are by no means exhaustive.
There are two examples from South Australia where fox control programs are being
implemented. The first – Operation Bounceback – has significant state government
17
investment that has allowed the implementation of best practice monitoring that has
demonstrated good biodiversity outcomes from the program. The second – Eyre Peninsula
fox project – is a private landholder driven program with much less capacity for monitoring.
Some monitoring of fox populations through spotlight counts has shown a decline in fox
numbers but there has been little evaluation of baiting practices of private landowners and
whether baiting is contributing to a landscape scale biodiversity improvement (pers. Comm.
Mark Williams, Primary Industries and Research South Australia. 16 September 2013).
While Action 2.3 explicitly excludes bounties as an incentive for fox control, it is noted that the
Victorian government has introduced a bounty to promote the control of foxes and wild dogs
(Premier of Victoria, 2013).
While all these programs are important for fox control, it is not clear that they have been
identified from a state or national prioritisation process or driven by a locally or regionally
recognised need. Having willing people to implement programs is essential so this recognition
of need is important – but it may also be necessary, as has been done for the NSW threat
abatement plan for predation by the red fox, to overlay a regional/state/national sense of
priority.
As such, at a national level the performance indicators for this objective have been met.
However, the need to continue to promote the maintenance and recovery of native species
and ecological communities is ongoing as will be the refinement of priority areas and
incentives provided to landholders and community groups.
Conclusion
The actions under objective two of identifying the priority areas where fox control is possible,
monitoring fox control and applying incentives to work across tenures are now actions that are
well embedded into control programs for foxes. As such, the performance indicators are being
met as well. Areas prioritised for fox control include many for the recovery of native species
and ecological communities as well as for primary production reasons. All of the funding
programs require a degree of monitoring to determine if the programs are meeting their goals.
Where there is government funding assisting with fox control programs for the recovery of
threatened species, the degree or quality of monitoring depends on the funding available and
the willingness of the recipients to undertaken monitoring. Monitoring may not be
implemented ideally for community driven programs where there is significant in-kind action or
less monetary outlay. In addition, capacity or knowledge of monitoring may be lesser in these
groups so they tend to rely on more rudimentary measures of success. As will be discussed
later in the review, the Invasive Animals Cooperative Research Centre has identified this
knowledge gap and has developed some information products on monitoring.
The maintenance and recovery of native species and ecological communities that are affected
by fox predation will be a task that is never-ending given that foxes will not be eradicated from
Australia. Therefore the actual objective of promoting this is also a never-ending task.
18
OBJECTIVE THREE
The objective of improve knowledge and understanding of fox impacts and interactions with
other species and ecological processes.
Actions
3.1 Develop simple and cost-effective methods for monitoring populations
of foxes and the impacts of foxes, including reliable methods for monitoring
foxes and key native species at different densities, including very low
densities.
3.2 Investigate interactions between foxes and native carnivores to identify
the significance of competition and predation by foxes to these native
species.
3.3 Determine the nature of interactions between foxes, feral cats, wild
dogs and rabbits to effectively integrate fox control activities for all four
species.
3.4 Identify any unintended effects that fox control may have if conducted in
isolation from other management activities.
3.5 Develop means for estimating the environmental and other associated
costs of impacts arising from foxes.
Medium priority,
short term
Medium priority, long
term
Medium priority, long
term
Medium priority, long
term
Medium priority,
short term
Performance indicators:
 Reliable fox monitoring techniques have been developed.
 Integration of control methods for pest species.
 The unintended effects of fox control are minimised.
Each action in this objective is discussed and a commentary about progress in meeting the
performance indicators follows. This format is used as there has been a significant amount of
research undertaken to improve our knowledge and understanding of fox impacts and
interactions in the last five years. The review attempts to capture the breadth of this work.
Action 3.1 Monitoring
The affordability, availability, and ease of use of remote cameras has changed for the better
with many more people undertaking monitoring of all animals. Remote cameras are now
being used for many applications – both in wildlife monitoring and other areas outside of
conservation management – and have reduced significantly in price. Remote cameras are
typically set up for monitoring either on sites such as fire trails and other places which foxes
regularly utilise, or in front of baits or other lures. These sites are valuable for monitoring any
change in fox occupancy before and after control programs, or to see what species are
attracted to the baits or lures. However, the interpretation of results from remote cameras is
not always statistically robust. It is anticipated that in the next few years, technology and
accessibility will improve further. Remote cameras are predominantly used in control
programs where specific funding has been allocated for the purchase of cameras. However,
as they can be used multiple times the use of cameras will increase.
Diment (2010) undertook a PhD study into monitoring tools for foxes in the forests of East
Gippsland, Victoria. In particular he compared the efficiency of camera traps versus sand
pads to monitor bait uptake for a buried bait program. In a relatively wet area where the bait
stations are not accessed daily, footprints are regularly destroyed and where the prints are
registered it is not always possible to determine multiple visits. Diment (2010) determined for
19
his site that it was 28 times more efficient to use camera traps for monitoring compared to
sand pads.
An example of camera use is by Towerton et al. (2011) in the Goonoo region, central New
South Wales. Two studies measured occupancy before and after baiting and they were able
to demonstrate greater levels of fox activity on vehicular tracks than off them, with this
difference being more marked in forest than in cleared agricultural land. Subsequent
monitoring (Bergsen, pers. comm.) from the same area showed a decline in occupancy and
activity within Goonoo National Park after 2011, but inconsistent results in the surrounding
agricultural country. Studies such as these allow better design of baiting programs for land
managers. For example, foxes’ preference for tracks can be built into program design for
forested areas.
Meek et al. (2013) have published a design for a security box so that remote cameras can be
used for monitoring in areas where there is a high risk of theft or damage to the camera.
Another monitoring technique that has improved significantly in the last five years is the
monitoring of individual animals through tracking collars. GPS loggers are now inbuilt into
many collars and can give accurate positional fixes of the animals at regular intervals. This is
particularly valuable for improving our understanding of how foxes use the landscape – both in
a spatial sense and a temporal sense. In turn, this information will allow refinement of
techniques such as bait placement or trap location.
Berry et al. (2012) used a non-invasive DNA technique to measure the change in fox density
after baiting. Fox hairs were collected from hair snares three times pre-baiting and once after
baiting. Analysis of the DNA from the fox hairs allowed for an accurate count of the number of
foxes visiting the hair snare sites. This provided an average of 0.73 foxes per square
kilometre prior to baiting and 0.004 foxes per square kilometre after baiting. Berry et al. (2012)
conclude that this is significantly more effective in determining abundance than conducting a
trapping program with 28 % of trap nights yielding suitable samples.
The fox eradication program in Tasmania is using DNA analysis of fox scats to determine the
number and location of individual foxes. The DNA analysis has been able to confirm there are
at least 16 individuals out of the 61 scats containing fox DNA (Invasive Animals Cooperative
Research Centre, 2013) showing that, together with the other monitoring tools being used,
there is a viable population in the state. The Invasive Animals Cooperative Research Centre
has this project as an ongoing research project in the 2012-17 extension of the cooperative
research centre. The Land Pest Products and Strategies program has under outcome 1 (no
new vertebrate pests established in Australia) the project of ‘Technologies and strategies for
long-term Tasmanian fox incursion response’ (Invasive Animals Cooperative Research Centre,
2010). The project includes: next generation invasive carnivore detection tools, techniques
and strategies including DNA and other detection techniques; detection thresholds through
telemetry and detection probability analysis; risk and long term strategic planning.
The Tasmanian Fox Eradication Program is using odor detection dogs to search for sign of
foxes, such as scats, in the current landscape scale strategic monitoring phase.
Diment (2010) determined that scat density counts were useful in Far East Gippsland, Victoria
for determining fox abundance, and that DNA analysis of the scats provided another level of
information on individual fox ranges.
20
Land managers are also still reliant on the use of sand pads to indicate the presence or
absence of foxes, and often deploy them on management trails where a sandy substrate
exists. It should be noted that sand pads require the right conditions (e.g. three-four days of
consecutive data, and no vehicles, rain or wind on the sand pads) to get robust information.
Informal monitoring such as the visual sighting of foxes and road-kill foxes are also an
indicator of presence for land managers.
The Invasive Animals Cooperative Research Centre (McLeod L. 2013) has released a
glovebox guide for managing foxes that provides land managers with information about how to
identify fox prints and how to work out whether predated animal carcasses (e.g. lambs) have
been attacked by foxes or another animal. This new publication is based on the more detailed
Monitoring techniques for vertebrate pests: foxes (Mitchell & Balogh, 2007), which provides
land managers with detailed information about how to undertake spotlighting, bait station
monitoring, track counts, scat counts, den counts, capture-recapture, trapping and telemetry,
and genetic sampling.
Vine et al. (2009) undertook a study in 2003-04 on the southern tablelands of New South
Wales to compare sampling effort and detection methods for foxes. While some of the specific
findings about camera traps and hair traps have been superseded (see Towerton et al. (2011)
and Berry et al. (2012)) they found significant differences between the four methods used over
the seasons. Spotlighting efficiency peaked in autumn and was least efficient in winter
whereas genetic sampling of scats is least effective in summer due to the breakdown of the
scats.
It is concluded that this performance indicator has been met as reliable fox monitoring
techniques are available for land mangers to use, even at low densities, and that the
technology is likely to improve in the future. The examples provided in this review are of bestpractice, peer-reviewed use of the techniques. It will be important to ensure that all users of
new techniques and technology, such as remote cameras, understand how to correctly
interpret data. For example, whether your camera is measuring a change in occupancy based
on actual fox abundance, or the detectability of foxes. A change in season may move foxes
away or towards a set of cameras.
As such, while it is concluded that performance indicator one of reliable fox monitoring is met,
this is an open-ended performance indicator and more could, and needs to, be done.
Action 3.2 Predator interactions - native carnivores
Limited studies have been undertaken on the interaction between foxes and quolls, the main
native predator that is in competition for prey with the fox. Glen and Dickman (2008)
undertook a study of diets and spatial overlap of spotted-tailed quolls (Dasyurus maculatus),
foxes and dogs in north-eastern New South Wales. While only one fox was collared so no
meaningful spatial data was obtainable, sample sizes of scats were adequate to do a dietary
comparison. There was extensive overlap in diet between the three species with medium
sized mammals (rabbits, red-necked pademelons and bandicoots) dominating all diets. Foxes
took proportionally more small mammals than quolls (antechinus, rats etc) and fewer insects.
Glen and Dickman (2008) conclude that control of foxes and dogs would benefit the spottedtailed quoll through greater food resource availability. Further modelling by Glen and Dickman
(2013) suggested that high densities of predators competing could drive some quoll
populations to extinction. Experimental evidence is required for this hypothesis.
21
Control programs for foxes and wild dogs, especially ones where the bait is surface laid (e.g.
aerial baiting), may put individual quolls at risk by consuming baits. Claridge et al. (2006)
undertook a non-toxic study of surface bait consumption and determined 47% of spotted-tailed
quolls (Dasyurus maculatus) took one or more surface baits. It should be noted that the baits
were delivered at a higher density in this study than is normal for a control program for foxes
or wild dogs. An earlier study by Körtner and Watson (2005) radiotracked 36 spotted-tailed
quolls (Dasyurus maculatus) after aerial baiting with nine mortalities – only one of which could
be confirmed as due to the 1080 toxin. Five quolls consumed baits and survived. Körtner and
Watson (2005) propose that there may also be a developed or innate avoidance of 1080.
The following paragraph has been added post-Ministerial noting of the review to incorporate
key research missed during the review and clarify current knowledge regarding the potential
risk to spotted-tailed quolls from aerial baiting with 1080.
Further research by Körtner (2007) in the New England Tablelands, NSW and
by Claridge and Mills (2007) in Kosciuszko National Park, NSW radiotracked
the fate of spotted-tailed quolls after aerial baiting with the 1080 toxin. Both
studies used a tracking dye, rhodamine-B, to determine which quolls consumed
baits and survived when they were re-trapped 5+ weeks after baiting. The
results showed that spotted-tailed quolls are more resilient to the toxin in a bait
in the field than sensitivity tests have suggested. Körtner (2007) measured 19
quolls post-baiting and determined 68% had eaten baits and survived, with
multiple bait takes being common. Claridge and Mills (2007) measured 19
quolls post-baiting and determined 33% had eaten baits and survived. Of the
mortalities during the two trials, post-mortems showed no deaths due to the
1080 toxin. It is concluded from these three studies that quolls are likely to
consume baits during aerial baiting but that they may be more tolerant to the
doses required in these baits for foxes and wild dogs and not be poisoned.
These studies of the interaction of foxes, spotted-tailed quolls and control programs highlight
the dietary overlap. Baiting control programs for foxes may assist quolls but they need to be
carefully designed so as to ensure no ill effects on quoll populations, especially where they are
small or fragmented.
Sutherland et al. (2010) considered dietary overlap of varanid species and mammalian
carnivores, including foxes. The overlap is considerable and Sutherland et al. (2010) highlight
the need for this to be considered when managing predators for fauna conservation.
Byrant (2012) studied the south-west carpet python (Morelia spilota imbricata) as a native
mesopredator that may be affected by foxes. Two study sites, one in a fox baited and one in a
non-baited area were used and the pythons were monitored for three years. These pythons
and foxes share similar prey resources. Byrant (2012) did not find any temporal segregation
by pythons to avoid foxes but microhabitat use was different between the sites with higher and
longer use of tree hollows in the unbaited site. Byrant (2012) suggests the pythons are
retreating to the tree hollows when they are most vulnerable to direct fox predation (i.e. when
they are less capable of quick movement).
The establishment of foxes in Tasmania, be it currently at a low population density, means that
the impact of predation by foxes on native wildlife will need to be managed in the future.
Hughes et al. (2011) undertook a preliminary study on the palatability and possible effects of
fox baiting on the Tasmanian devil. The field study determined that devils will consume
22
surface laid baits and dig up accessible baits (5 cm burial depth). Deep burial (15 cm) posed a
lower but still significant bait take. The study used non-toxic Foxoff® baits, but a calculated
toxic dose is 1.4 baits for a median sized devil. Hughes et al. (2011) suggest further work
needs to be done on burial depths that remain attractive for foxes and whether there is a depth
for burial at which devils are not attracted.
It is concluded that there is a good understanding of the need to have knowledge of the
interactions between foxes and native carnivores, and the way that these interactions then
cascade through ecosystems. In particular, there has been an emphasis on the spotted-tailed
quoll, although there is still a lot to understand for designing effective fox control programs
where quolls exist. There has been less work done on other species so at this point in time it
would be difficult to conclude the performance indicators two and three (integration of control
methods for pest species and the unintended effects of fox control are minimised) have been
met with respect to native carnivores.
Action 3.3 Predator interactions - Feral cats, wild dogs and rabbits
Note that, for the purposes of this review, wild dogs, dingoes and their hybrids are considered
to be the same.
Buckmaster (2011), as part of his PhD research considered the way that feral cats used their
home range. GPS tracking of feral cats provided point data on the parts of the home range
being utilised. Trapping of small mammals indicated sufficient food resources were available
across the entire range. Buckmaster (2011) hypothesised that avoidance of foxes and wild
dogs (intraguild predators) may be suppressing the use of part of the home range while food
resources are sufficient. There were both wild dogs and foxes in the area at the time as the
capture of 10 wild dogs and 9 foxes, as well as the predation of one radio-collared cat,
indicated.
The development of fox and wild dog specific control devices such as the mechanical ejector
(Invasive Animals Cooperative Research Centre, 2012) have the potential to release feral cats
from predation and competition pressure. Land managers will need to ensure the potential
impacts of this are considered. Objective four provides more detail on these devices.
The threat abatement plan notes the use of exclusion fences to exclude foxes will also exclude
cats and wild dogs, which may also be desirable for species threatened by predation. To date,
where exclusion fences have been erected there has been a dire need to protect one or more
species from predation – and often from all three predators. However, there may be some
species contained within the fence that are successful in breeding to high populations that
then create their own imbalance with no predation other than raptors. For example, the Arid
Recovery reserve in South Australia has recently relocated a number of burrowing bettongs
(Bettongia lesuer) because they were overpopulating the fenced reserve (Elliott, 2013).
Cupples et al. (2011) looked at dietary overlap between dingoes and foxes in three arid sites
(c.f. Glen and Dickman (2008) above) through scat analysis. There was at least 85% overlap
in diet at all the sites although, not surprisingly, dingoes consumed more large (>999g) and
less small (<100g) mammals than foxes. Cupples et al. (2011) suggest that the dietary
overlap could contribute to a suppressive effect of dingoes on fox abundances, as well as
direct predation of the foxes. The results showed that rabbits were an important food item for
both the dingoes and foxes and where rabbits were scarce in the Simpson Desert they
consumed a greater portion of reptiles, invertebrates and rodents. Pavey et al. (2008) also
noted the overlap in predation of rodents by the fox and dingo in central Australia. Overlap
23
was highest during a rodent irruption and Pavey et al. (2008) estimated that dingoes, foxes
and cats together consumed 11 times the number of rodents as letter-winged kites (Elanus
scriptus).
Johnston and VanDerWal (2009) analysed published data on fox and wild dog abundances in
eastern Australian forests. They concluded that these data demonstrated a suppression of
foxes by wild dogs such that: when wild dogs are abundant, foxes are consistently rare, while
when wild dogs are rare, foxes may be abundant but not always so.
This is in contrast to the work of Mitchell and Banks (2005) in the Blue Mountains of New
South Wales which found different responses to landscape use but no support for landscapescale exclusion of foxes by wild dogs.
Letnic et al. (2009a) looked at the relationship between a rodent, Notomys fuscus or dusky
hopping mouse, in the arid zone and dingoes, foxes, rainfall and other factors. The study
considered abundances of the different animals on either side of the dog fence in the
Strzelecki Desert. Long-term rainfall was an important relationship as was the presence of
dingoes. There was a negative relationship with foxes and Letnic et al. (2009a) propose that
the dingo as the top order predator is suppressing foxes (and cats) in a way that benefited the
N. fuscus.
These examples from Johnston and VanDerWal (2009) and Letnic et al. (2009a) are studies
that show suppression of foxes by wild dogs in these two situations, but whether this is
widespread in the Australian landscape is highly contested. Allen et al. (2013) put forward the
reminder that wild dogs (dingoes) also predate on native animals and given the high dietary
overlap (Glen & Dickman, 2008) it is not surprising that they are also listed under the EPBC
Act as a known or potential threat to 54 threatened species (Department of Sustainability,
Environment, Water, Population and Communitites, 2013). Further understanding of the
complex interactions between the various carnivores (non-native and native) and their prey is
needed in different environments to be able to accurately guide land managers in threatened
species recovery.
A workshop of experts was held in October 2012 to have a facilitated discussion of predator
and prey responses to lethal control of wild dogs, foxes and feral cats (Fleming, Ballard, &
Allen, 2013). It concentrated on determining the expected trophic responses to lethal predator
control. There was a focus on World Heritage Areas but the discussions were broader to
encompass the ideas of control across tenures and the real constraints on some management
techniques in World Heritage Areas. The experts agreed on a number of points including:

It is more likely that there is an overlap in control techniques between foxes and wild dogs
than other combinations (e.g. cats and foxes);

The key factors in achieving control of predators were: controlling immigration; having a
program on a sufficient scale to affect both individuals and the population; guild
composition (especially the changes in Tasmania with the introduction of foxes and loss of
Tasmanian devils); resource availability for the predators; topography and vegetation;
temporal scale of the management program; and linking the management strategy with
knowledge of the ecology of the affected species.

There was debate about the control of dogs resulting in the release of foxes or the control
of foxes. Some argued that foxes have a higher population growth and can recover from
control programs quicker than dogs but others argued (from observation in north-east New
24
South Wales) that control programs can disproportionately affect foxes. A hypothesis was
put forward that bait spread is an important factor in whether dogs or foxes are affected to
a greater degree.

It was suggested that dog control may allow foxes and cats greater access to optimal
hunting areas, meaning that the post-dog-control impact from foxes on biodiversity is
greater. This is in response to the direct dog-fox-cat agonistic behaviour.

Tables were developed for single and multiple control programs suggesting the responses
of both the predators and also non-target species (e.g. quolls, goannas and corvids). For
foxes, a single event short term control is expected to control foxes, decrease wild dogs,
keep cat populations the same, and have no impact on non-target species. For multiple
events in the long term foxes and wild dogs will decrease, cats will be the same or
increase, and non-target populations will increase with the exception of corvids which are
expected to be unaffected.

It was noted that for critical weight range species it is almost impossible to reduce predator
densities (especially foxes and cats) low enough to benefit native fauna in the arid zone.
This depends on the particular environment and whether refuges are available for the
native species. It was noted that in areas where foxes are functionally or literally absent,
the critical weight range animals are more abundant.
Climate change and the density of foxes has been modelled for NSW by Caley et al. (2011).
They used four climate models to forecast density of foxes in 2050 and concluded that there
will be some changes to the way foxes spatially utilise the landscape where they occur,
although little or no reduced overall distribution is predicted. Increasing wild dog distribution
and abundance is likely to have an impact on fox populations.
These studies demonstrate the work that is being done to understand the various predator
interactions and the important effect that rabbits also have as a food resource to all the
predators. Cupples et al. (2011) reinforces the concept of prey switching from rabbits to native
animals. Land managers need to be cognisant of this when planning rabbit control programs,
especially if the rabbit control is aimed at releasing small native rodents and invertebrates from
competition.
In conclusion, there is some understanding of the interactions of foxes with cats and dogs but
the hypotheses are highly contested. The role of dogs as top order predators and whether
they should be controlled or not for conservation is driving the research. It is likely that a
better understanding will come in future years. The challenge will be to integrate this
knowledge into fox management programs. The interaction with cats and rabbits is also only
partially known. As such, the two performance indicators (integration of control methods for
pest species, and the unintended effects of fox control are minimised) have only partially been
met and much more work is still required.
Action 3.4 Unintended effects from fox control
Unintended effects from undertaking fox control can range from the release of other invasive
species including the mesopredator release of feral cats and the release of rabbits from
predation pressure, to changes in other species interactions. The case study below provides
an example of the latter.
25
There is lots of information available for land managers outlining the need to consider the
release of rabbits from fox control programs. The Invasive Animals Cooperative Research
Centre’s (McLeod L. 2013) glovebox guide for managing foxes discusses the need for an
integrated approach: “Rabbits are a major food source for foxes. When rabbit numbers are
low, fox numbers are also generally low. Controlling foxes without also controlling rabbits can
lead to an increase in rabbit numbers, which can then allow a more speedy recovery for the
fox population. By decreasing the amount of alternative food available, rabbit control can also
increase the effectiveness of fox control programs.”
Case study 3.1 Booderee National Park fox control program
Booderee National Park, south coast of NSW, has undertaken fox control since 1999. As the
park is on a peninsula it has provided a site where it is possible to reduce fox abundances to a
very low level and control immigration through strategic placement of baits. Baiting occurred
twice yearly at Booderee from 1999 to 2003, and since then at monthly intervals.
Monitoring of species occurs with the measurement of bait take being used as an index for fox
numbers. Spotlight transect counts are used for other species. The bait take by foxes is now
at a consistently low 1% of baits and the spotlight transects have shown a tenfold increase in
the abundance of swamp wallabies (Wallabia bicolor), a prey item for foxes (Dexter, Ramsey,
MacGregor, & Lindenmeyer, 2012).
There have been two unintended consequences of the fox control program on the ecosystem
at Booderee. The first is the increase in abundance of the swamp wallaby which has lead to
heavy browsing of a wide range of plants, causing a change in the understory community from
one dominated by a diverse community of angiosperms to one dominated by the unpalatable
bracken fern (Pteridium exculentum).
Dexter et al. (2012) speculate that the second unintended consequence is the decline and
virtual disappearance of the greater glider (Petauroides volans). Spotlight transects did not
detect greater gliders in 2007 to 2009 (Dexter, Ramsey, MacGregor, & Lindenmeyer, 2012).
There are two hypotheses put forward.
The first is an increase in common ringtail possums (Pseudocheirus peregrineus) as they were
released from fox predation pressure subsequently causing an increase in the powerful owl
(Ninox strenua) population as the owls benefitted from an increase in their food resources.
However, powerful owls forage by depleting arboreal marsupial populations from different
parts of their very large home ranges in a systematic manner. The powerful owls would be
taking greater gliders as well as the common ringtail possum causing the decline.
The second hypothesis is that there is competition from the common brushtail possum
(Trichosurus vulpecular) for nest hollows. The common brushtail possum has also increased
in abundance since fox baiting commenced.
Bushfires since the time when baiting for foxes commenced will have complicated the analysis
of the data on animal abundances with Lindenmayer et al. (2008) finding the complication of
feral animal control while studying the mammal responses to a large wildfire in 2003.
Dexter et al. (2012) undertook some fuzzy cognitive modelling to consider potential
management solutions to the problem of these unintended consequences of the fox baiting
26
program, and specifically how to improve the understorey vegetation. They modelled
responses of vegetation and various animal species to five management options: status quo
with continued high levels of fox control; ceasing fox control; culling swamp wallabies and
maintaining high levels of fox control; introducing dingoes and ceasing fox control; and
introducing dingoes and maintaining fox control. The modelling was limited by a poor
understanding of the interactions between the modelled taxa, despite Booderee being well
studied. Only two of the options, culling swamp wallabies and introducing dingoes to predate
on the swamp wallabies predicted an improvement in the vegetation. Dexter et al. (2012) note
that ceasing fox control would also cause long-nosed bandicoots, common brushtailed
possums, and diamond pythons to decline from increased predation pressure and/or
competition. It needs to be noted that culling wallabies or introducing dingoes may not be
considered acceptable management techniques for Booderee National Park.
In conclusion, most people consider changes to other predators and prey items as “unintended
effects”. However, the Booderee National Park example shows the ecological systems in
which fox control is being conducted is much more complex. At this point in time, managers
conducting fox control programs are unlikely to be meeting the performance indicator of
minimising unintended effects out of pure ignorance of what those effects may be.
Action 3.5 Estimating the environmental and other associated costs
Estimating the environmental costs of invasive species is a problem that has attracted many
studies, and is also tied into the different methods used to value the environment. However,
there has been little specific work undertaken to estimate the environmental costs of foxes in
Australia.
The economic cost of foxes is most easily calculated for agricultural enterprises, especially
lamb production. For example, Jones et al. (2006) undertook an evaluation of a coordinated
fox baiting program in rural New South Wales. This established a mean benefit-cost ratio for
lamb production of 13:1 with a very low probability of the program providing a negative
economic return.
The Invasive Animals Cooperative Research Centre invested in a report by Gong et al. (2009)
on the economic impacts of vertebrate pests in Australia. As with the Jones et al. (2006)
report, this is mostly restricted to the direct economic impacts on agriculture and the
expenditure by governments and landholders on pest management, administration and
research. The New South Wales and Western Australian governments’ expenditure on
conservation estate has been provided for 2007-08. For foxes this is $1.27 million cost of
direct management and fox threat abatement planning in New South Wales, and $2.2 million
in Western Australia. Overall losses to agriculture across of Australia are estimated at
$21.1 million from foxes.
The social impact of foxes in the Upper Hunter, New South Wales was considered by
Fitzgerald and Wilkinson (2009). Foxes were considered to be the second most important
problem animal, after wild dogs. The main issues were predation on sheep and poultry
undermining the sustainability of sheep farming, and the recognised predation on native
animals. Reduced farm income, financial and psychological stress were the main social
impacts created by the fox problem.
In conclusion, there has been some work done considering primary production and social
costs of foxes but there are no readily applied proxies to compare with environmental costs.
27
Further work is required in the broader environmental valuation space before this action can
be completed.
Conclusion
There has been considerable work undertaken to improve knowledge and understanding of
fox impacts and interactions with other species and other ecological processes. In particular,
the ways in which foxes can be monitored have improved with the use of remote cameras and
GPS logging. The need to understand the interactions between various predators, both native
and non-native, is driving many studies. It is anticipated that this momentum will see more
published research in the next few years. In particular, the role of dingoes as an apex
mesopredator and the possible suppression of foxes (and other predators) is still being
extensively debated.
There is less published information on unintended effects of fox management but the
examples that are available highlight the complexities of managing foxes where they have
been long established in an ecosystem.
The only area where there has been little change in the level of knowledge is on the specific
environmental and other associated costs of impacts arising from foxes.
The performance indicators for this objective have been partially met (mainly with the
development of reliable monitoring methods), however, these are open-ended performance
indicators and they could very easily be retained and be valid in the future. This conclusion
also applied to the objective, with the acknowledgement that we do not have a comprehensive
knowledge of foxes in the Australian landscape and further research is required.
OBJECTIVE FOUR
The objective of improve the effectiveness, target specificity, integration and humaneness of
control options for foxes.
Actions
4.1 Conduct research and extension to improve the effectiveness, target
specificity and humaneness of existing toxin-bait media and baiting methods.
4.2 Conduct further work on the development of new, or improvements to
existing, control techniques.
4.3 Test and disseminate information on exclusion fence designs and other
control methods regarding their cost-effectiveness for particular habitats or
topography.
4.4 Investigate the feasibility of control techniques to target foxes, but not
dingoes, in some areas.
4.5 Develop training programs to help land managers identify locally
appropriate control method(s) and when (i.e. circumstances and times) to
apply them in controlling foxes.
4.6 Ensure that habitat rehabilitation and management of potential prey,
competitors and predators of foxes are considered in fox control programs.
4.7 Continue to promote the adoption and adaptation of the model codes of
practice and standard operating procedures for humane management of
foxes.
28
High priority, long term
High priority, long term
Low priority, medium
term
Low priority, long term
High priority, short
term
Medium priority, long
term
High priority, long term
Performance indicators:
 Increased range of registered control techniques available for fox control.
 Widespread use of the most appropriate, cost-effective control methods, according to local
conditions.
 Increased adoption and adaptation of the model codes of practice and standard operating
procedures for the humane management of foxes, including their recognition as a
reference under the National Competency Standards for Vertebrate Pest Management.
As with objective three, each action is discussed and a commentary about progress in meeting
the performance indicators follows.
There has been considerable research undertaken since 2008 that meets this objective. The
Invasive Animals Cooperative Research Centre has, in phase one (2005-2012): led the
development of an additional new toxin for fox and wild dog control; researched fox ecology in
response to lethal control; and developed new DNA monitoring techniques, which are being
applied in the search for foxes in Tasmania. The second phase (2012-2017) is finalising the
new toxin and furthering the technologies and strategies for the long-term Tasmanian fox
incursion response. State governments are also working on control techniques with regional
NRM groups, conservation agencies and land management groups.
Action 4.1 Research into effectiveness, target specificity and humaneness
The Invasive Animals Cooperative Research Centre has been developing a new baiting
product based on the toxin para-aminopropiophenone (PAPP) (Invasive Animals Cooperative
Research Centre, 2012). The toxin is highly toxic to foxes, dogs and cats due to the unique
way that they metabolise PAPP. Few native species show this degree of vulnerability to the
toxin, however there are some (such as goannas) which are susceptible and some which
could consume a toxic dose, especially for the higher dose dog baits, if enough of the bait was
eaten. The animals in this secondary group, such as quolls, are more tolerant to the toxin on a
milligrams of toxin per kilogram of body weight basis but are much smaller animals (e.g. an
eastern quoll weighs between 0.9 and 1.3 kg, and a spotted tailed quoll is up to 4 kg while
foxes range between 3 and 14 kg). In places where fox or dog control is being undertaken for
conservation the new bait may still need to be buried, as is the case for 1080 baits, to prevent
consumption by non-target species such as quolls.
The new toxin and bait both require registration through the Australian Government’s
Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority. An application to register the PAPP
toxin active was submitted in March 2012 and the Foxecute® bait product registration
application was submitted in June 2012.
As part of the development of the PAPP-based baits for foxes and wild dogs, an antidote has
also been developed that can reverse the effects of the toxin. This provides a tool for farmers
to use on their working dogs if they consume a bait.
The New South Wales National Parks and Wildlife Service has been trialling a mechanical
ejector for a target specific alternative to buried baits. The mechanical ejectors are a metal
tube buried into the ground, with a bait or attractant attached to the head. A dose of toxin is
administered to the back of the mouth of the animal when it pulls on the head to remove the
bait. The device is target specific to foxes and dogs through a spring loading that requires a
pull that only these animals can apply. Non-target species such as quolls are unable to trigger
29
the device. At present the New South Wales National Parks and Wildlife Service has been
trialling these devices using the toxin 1080 (NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service, 2010).
But the mechanical ejector can be loaded with other toxins and PAPP and cyanide are being
considered. Both of these toxins will need to be registered for use prior to them being made
available to land managers. The NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service (2010) suggest the
most benefit from ejectors will be gained in areas where foxes avoid or continually cache
regular buried baits; long-term fox and wild dog control sites where resources do not allow
continuous baiting or trapping; and to expand current programs to include areas where difficult
or remote access restricts regular visits to bait stations.
There is significant concern about the humaneness of the toxin 1080 (Australian Pesticides
and Veterinary Medicines Authority, 2007) and also of the non-target secondary poisoning
potential. Poisoned animals collapse and convulse as the central nervous system is disrupted
prior to death which has the appearance that the animal is suffering. However the animals are
unresponsive to external stimuli, making an assessment of the humaneness difficult. Marks et
al. (2009) undertook a study to see if analgesic or anxiolotic drugs are able to alter the
possible suffering. Carprofen, copper indomethacin and buspirone were tested and carprofen
and copper indomethacin reduced retchin from the foxes and did not appear to affect the
lethality. Copper indomethacin reduces the time to the onset of poisoning symptoms and
death while carprofen reduces the overall intensity of the convulsions. Marks et al. (2009)
suggest that copper indomethacin shows immediate potential to be used. However, at present
these drugs are not available for addition to 1080 baits due to manufacturers’ concerns in
being associated with toxic baiting (pers. comm. Frank Gigliotti, 2012).
Diment (2010) monitored a fox baiting program in Far East Gippsland using remote cameras.
In this study the baits were buried 10-15 cm deep in prepared plots. An analysis of the
photographs taken of species that exhumed and consumed baits indicated in this forested
environment that native rats, in particular Rattus fuscipes and R. lutreolus, took baits. While
the baits were lethal to the rats on an individual level, the relative abundances of the rats mean
there was no long-term impact on the populations.
In conclusion, the development of a bait containing PAPP is a large step forward in
humaneness, although it is noted that this cannot replace 1080 in all situations. Other tools
have been developed to improve target specificity. As such, this provides tools to help meet
performance indicator two of the appropriate and cost-effective control method use.
Action 4.2 Further work on improvements to control techniques
The focus of the Invasive Animals Cooperative Research Centre has been on the
development of the Foxecute® PAPP bait (Research program 2005-12 goal 1) described
above.
Another line of recent research has been the development of devices, such as tunnels, with
sensors at different heights to detect the passing of an animal. The intention is to be able to
distinguish between dogs, foxes, cats and quolls based on animal height and leg height. If the
sensors determine the animal to be the target species (e.g. fox) a toxic liquid will be sprayed
on the animal to trigger a grooming reflex and cause ingestion of the toxin. This research is
still underway by the Invasive Animals Cooperative Research Centre.
Padded leg-hold traps are a commonly used trapping device for foxes. These traps are
generally considered to be humane if used in the appropriate way, which includes regular
checking of traps. The Invasive Animals Cooperative Research Centre (2012) is developing a
30
lethal trap device to be fitted to the padded leg-hold traps to provide a rapid means of death.
A lethal trap device consists of a tube of toxin (potentially cyanide) that will rupture on chewing
by the trapped animal and deliver a toxic dose. This will improve the humaneness of the
padded leg-hold traps as they will provide a rapid time to death.
Moseby and Hill (2011) looked at baiting design to control both feral cats and foxes around the
predator exclosure at Roxby Downs, South Australia. Over four years it was determined that
quarterly aerial baiting was required to suppress fox numbers as less frequently than this (e.g.
annual baiting) allowed reinvasion of the area within four months. This study should assist
land managers in planning of baiting programs.
Diment’s (2010) study in Far East Gippsland of baiting design was able to confirm the efficacy
of the Southern Ark program’s 1 km spacing for buried bait stations. This was concluded by
looking at the timing of fox visits to bait stations through remote camera photographs. Multiple
baits were taken on about 50 % of the bait removals. Diment (2010) recommended a study
into whether a 2 km spacing of bait stations in this environment may keep the same level of
effectiveness of fox kill while being cheaper (fewer baits) and minimising the number of baits
potentially cached by foxes that are then available to non-target species. The bait station
spacing is also contingent on the shape of the track networks in an area to provide an overall
density of baiting for an area (pers. comm. Alan Robley 2013).
Some agricultural studies have been conducted to maximise the effectiveness of fox control
programs on lamb predation. The conclusions of these studies would also be applicable to fox
control programs for biodiversity outcomes. Carter et al. (2011) looked at spatial coverage of
baiting for foxes and how well this overlapped with fox home ranges. As with any baiting
program there was a limited uptake by land holders so not all properties were baited. Six
foxes were tracked with radio-tracking collars and these had on average about one third of
their home range being baited and only two of the foxes consumed baits. The study
concluded that alternative baiting strategies such as using roadside baiting may need to be
considered to improve fox control in and agricultural landscape. This study by Carter et al.
(2011) was part of research to improve fox management in agricultural landscapes inhabited
by bush-stone curlews.
The use in agriculture of guardian dogs such as the Mareema breed to protect livestock from
predation has moved into the area of threatened species protection. If a guardian dog can be
bonded with a species that groups it may be an option to reduce predation. An example is
from the Middle Island Mareema Project in Warrnambool in Victoria to protect little penguins
(case study 1.1).
McLeod et al. (2010) looked at group participation in fox control programs in New South
Wales. They found that the development of a high level of group participation in control
programs improved both the spatial and temporal success of the program. Properties that had
near neighbours (<2.5 km) participating in the program had a higher survival rate of lambs,
and twice yearly baiting had higher lamb survival rates.
The findings from both Carter et al. (2011) and McLeod et al. (2010) would apply to the
survival rates of threatened species where there are appropriate habitats across multiple land
holders.
In conclusion, there is an increased range of fox control techniques either under development
or close to registration in Australia. Most of these will not replace existing techniques but
provide an additional tool. As such performance indicator one (increased range of registered
31
control techniques available for fox control) has been met and the challenge will be to ensure
uptake. There will be an ongoing need for new tools and techniques to improve control of
foxes.
Action 4.3 Information on exclusion fence designs and other control methods
Exclusion fence designs have essentially standardised on models that are most effective in
different situations. All of these designs have some sort of floppy or rolled top to prevent
climbing over, and some sort of apron at the base to prevent digging under. The design of
corners is particularly important as these provide more climbing opportunities. Some designs
also incorporate electric wires to prevent the challenging of the fence itself.
Both Australian and New Zealand companies have designs that work for a variety of species
including foxes. Western Australia has built a number of predator exclosures in the south-west
to protect a number of their threatened species. Case study 2.1 provides some more detail on
these projects. The Australian Wildlife Conservancy and other groups also use exclosures.
Predominantly the use of exclusion fences has been to provide a predator-free area for
animals to live where the threatened species are under sufficient pressure such that control
programs in the open are insufficient, although in South Australia the exclosure is used as a
hardening-off area prior to full release (see objective one).
The Department of Parks and Wildlife in Western Australia is embarking on a multi-species
eradication on Dirk Hartog Island. While this does not include foxes (not present on the
island), they will be using a fence across the middle of the island to break the area for
eradication at one time in half. Assuming this works – and there are significant challenges
including the design at the water’s edge – the fence will provide another step forward in how to
predator-proof areas. The fence building is scheduled to commence in 2014 (Department of
Parks and Wildlife, 2009).
No specific work has been done on the cost-effectiveness of exclosure fences versus other
control methods or in relation to particular habitats.
Alex Diment (2010) looked at fox ecology in response to lethal control in Far East Gippsland,
Victoria. This project provides some insights into how and when foxes reinvade areas that
have been subject to a control program and also considered native species’ densities in both
areas of control and outside these areas.
In conclusion, exclusion fence designs are now good and provide an effective barrier to foxes.
There has been widespread adoption of the use of exclusion fences to create mainland
‘islands’. As such, performance indicator two (widespread use of the most appropriate, costeffective control methods, according to local conditions) has been met for this action. Fence
designs now need to be extended to more challenging situations.
Action 4.4 Investigate the feasibility of control techniques to target foxes but not
dingoes.
In 2007 some work was commenced by Strive et al. (2007) considering immunocontraceptive
responses in foxes. A valuable knowledge base was established on the reproductive biology,
husbandry, biology and basic immunology of viral vectors in the fox. However, no further work
has been conducted since this time.
Robley et al. (2011) have undertaken some research into scent marking by dingoes and how
this provides a territorial boundary. Should this research lead to an understanding of what
32
chemical markers prevent the movement of dingoes, and possibly other carnivores such as
foxes, it may provide an option as a control technique.
No other research has been identified on control techniques attempting to target foxes but not
dingoes.
In conclusion, there has been very little research in this area and it has not contributed to
meeting the performance indicators.
Action 4.5 Develop training programs to help land managers identify locally appropriate
control methods and when to apply them.
Information is also provided against objective five in relation to formal pest management
training programs and cooperative groups undertaking control programs.
The Invasive Animals Cooperative Research Centre has released a DVD on undertaking leg
hold trapping for foxes (Invasive Animals Cooperative Research Centre, 2011). This aims to
provide land managers with information about how to confidently incorporate trapping into a
fox management program.
Specific programs controlling foxes for a particular threatened species use monitoring of foxes
to tailor their programs. An example of this is from the Yathong Nature Reserve in western
New South Wales (Wheeler & Priddel, 2009) where the authors released malleefowl (Leipoa
ocellata) and brush-tailed bettongs (Bettongia penicillata). They found that intensive ground
baiting of foxes was ineffective in mitigating the threat of predation by foxes but that broadscale aerial baiting three times a year substantially enhanced malleefowl survival, at least
during the first few years. Unfortunately the fox baiting has not concurrently controlled feral
cats that also pose a threat to the malleefowl.
It is known that fox densities are often related to rabbit densities where rabbits are their
predominant prey item. However, there is little direct information available for land managers
on how rabbit control programs may affect fox numbers or densities.
Fox baiting in Australia is done using baits containing the toxin 1080. Being a toxin that is
highly toxic to many species it is tightly regulated, both at the Australian Government level and
also at the state/territory government level. Because of different circumstances in different
states/territories (e.g. landscape type and use) there are necessarily differences in the
regulation of the 1080 licences and application of baits. This can be confusing for
stakeholders, particularly those who are trying to run cross-border, cross-tenure control
programs.
In conclusion, there is lots of information available but it is difficult to know whether the
performance indicator of widespread use of the most appropriate, cost-effective control
methods, according to local conditions, has been met due to very little reporting on many
control programs. Those receiving government grants may specify in grant applications which
techniques are to be used but the onus tends to be on the proponent to ensure they are the
most appropriate and cost-effective method.
Action 4.6 Ensure habitat rehabilitation and management of potential prey, competitors
and predators of foxes are considered in fox management programs.
There are a number of examples (e.g. Byrant (2012), Cupples et al. (2011), Dexter et al.
(2012), Fleming et al. (2013), Hughes et al. (2011), and Pavey et al. (2008)) from objective
33
three where the management of potential prey, competitors or predators of foxes has been
included in studies. Current research and management practices consider this to be an
essential element of any fox control program.
The Caring for our Country grants program of the Australian Government (Australian
Government, 2013) has a compulsory monitoring, evaluation, reporting and improvement
framework that is applied to all grants to ensure that there is a process of continual
improvement. The monitoring that is required, tailored for each project, ensures that
consideration is given to habitat rehabilitation and management of other potential
consequences of a fox management program.
This action needs to be considered in tandem with objective three for the management of
other species. That objective concluded, as is also concluded here, that the interactions with
other species is complex and only partially understood. However, there are some guides for
fox management programs to follow.
Action 4.7 Continue to promote the adoption of model codes of practice and standard
operating procedures.
The model codes of practice and standard operating procedures were updated in 2012 and
these are readily available for managers to use (Sharp & Saunders, Model code of practice for
the humane control of foxes), (Sharp, Standard operating procedures: foxes, 2012-2013).
Australian, state and territory governments continue to promote the model codes of practice
and standard operating procedures. There is a process underway to seek endorsement of the
various codes through the committees servicing the Primary Industries Standing Council.
The Australian Animal Welfare Strategy was developed in 2004 and continues to provide a
broad standard for appropriate management of pest animals including foxes.
In conclusion, the performance indicator – of increased adoption and adaptation of the model
codes of practice and standard operating procedures for the humane management of foxes,
including their recognition as a reference under the National Competency Standards for
Vertebrate Pest Management – has been met or is close to being met with updated
procedures that the Vertebrate Pests Committee (representing all governments) is
recommending to the Primary Industries Standing Council. Governments are committed to
promoting the procedures and this will assist in their uptake by all fox control managers.
Conclusion
It is concluded that there has been significant work, driven by the Invasive Animals
Cooperative Research Centre’s main goals in both the 2005-12 and 2012-17 research
programs. This will deliver a more humane bait for broad-scale control of foxes and potentially
other novel control methods. Leg-hold trapping humaneness may be improved with the use of
lethal trap devices.
The use of exclusion fencing for the protection of threatened species is increasing with
reserves across Australia. There are companies in both New Zealand and Australia who sell
well-designed exclusion fences for a range of species including foxes.
There has been very little research conducted into the specific control of foxes while excluding
dingoes, although as the evidence in objective three shows there is considerable research and
34
debate to understand the roles of wild dogs/dingoes, foxes and other species in the
environment. It is expected that if appropriate when more knowledge is available the question
of how to control of foxes without also negatively impacting on dingoes will be explored.
Actions 4.5 and 4.6 (regarding developing training programs to help land managers, and
ensuring habitat rehabilitation and management of potential prey, competitors and predators of
foxes are considered) overlap with objectives three and five, and much of the information
found has been documented there. However, it should be noted that there is now lots of good
information about how to develop and implement an effective fox control program and lots of
people undertaking management who would be able to assist with advice on the establishment
of new programs. Formal training is also available, although the delivery of this may still have
some limitations with regard to location and skills of the trainers. See objective five for more
detail.
Finally, the model codes of practice and standard operating procedures are current and
governments are working towards ensuring these are used as appropriate in their own
jurisdictions.
As such, the performance indicators have been met for this objective. That is, shortly, there
will be an increased range of fox control products on the market, there has been promotion of
best practice control methods for land managers to adopt, and the model codes of practice
and standard operating procedures are current with a requirement to use in some form in all
states and territories (noting this may vary by state or territory).
The specific actions under this objective could be updated to reflect the considerable progress
made in this area and focus attention on the next step of improving the effectiveness, target
specificity, integration and humaneness of control options as this will always be an objective of
fox management.
OBJECTIVE FIVE
The objective of increase awareness of all stakeholders of the objectives and actions of the
TAP, and of the need to control and manage foxes.
Actions
5.1 Promote:
 broad understanding of the threat to biodiversity posed by foxes and
support for their control
 support for the actions to be undertaken under this plan
 the use of humane and cost-effective fox control methods
 best-practice effective fox control in all tenures, and
 understanding of predation by foxes as a key threatening process.
High priority, long
term
Performance indicators:
 Increased proportion of fox control programs that use current best-practice techniques in
fox control.
 Increased awareness of the threat posed by foxes.
 Increased awareness of the TAP actions and objectives.
35
Formal training for stakeholders
Formal training structures are an essential basis to increase awareness of best-practice
management of foxes. These provide the foundation for broader education on the problem,
and for gaining public and hence financial support for management programs.
In 2010 Brown and Munckton (2010) undertook a scoping study of vertebrate pest
management training in response to a perceived reduction in appropriate management training
over the last decade. The main finding of the study was a significant variation in the content
and delivery of training, and disturbingly a large drop in the fieldwork component with training
packages requiring none to only 50 contact hours on vertebrate pest management. Brown
and Munckton (2010) found some increased demand for courses from Natural Resource
Management boards in South Australia, but a greater need for participation by Indigenous land
managers. Courses, such as 1080 licensing, can be prohibitive for some Indigenous land
managers because of a high English literacy requirement. The strong link to weed
management was identified as essential to be included in future courses in pest management.
There was a national curriculum course (AHC31810) Certificate III in vertebrate pest
management developed in 2011, and updated in March 2013 that covers the requirements of
someone seeking to work in vertebrate pest management. Twelve providers are registered to
provide some units or all of the course, although these providers do not cover all states and
territories (e.g. none registered in Tasmania). This is likely to limit the ability of some
vertebrate pest managers to easily access formal training.
Brown and Munckton (2010) recognise the PestSmart education tools that the Invasive
Animals Cooperative Research Centre has been developing for primary school (Pestales,
Invasive Animals Cooperative Research Centre, no date) and secondary school (Feral Focus,
Invasive Animals Cooperative Research Centre, no date) children as well as pest managers
and other interested people. These websites provide resources for teachers linked directly to
the national schools curriculum, and include fox information. For example there is a unit
considering why foxes cannot be eradicated if thylacines were exterminated from Tasmania so
quickly.
In conclusion, the performance indicator of an increased proportion of fox control programs
that use current best-practice techniques in fox control is likely to have been met because
there are many more resources available. However, there is very little information about what
techniques are being used for most programs so it is not possible to accurately measure.
Cross tenure or group management programs
Management programs that involve groups, be it a cross-tenure land management program or
a community group, raise general awareness of problems and can undertake appropriate
management. Examples of cross tenure land management include Carter et al (2011) who
looked at spatial coverage of baiting in south-east Australia in a management program
involving a coordinated approach by 37.5% of the landholders in an area and used radiocollared foxes to demonstrate the effectiveness of their baiting program; McLeod et al. (2010)
who demonstrated lamb survival rates related to spatial coverage of the fox control program in
New South Wales; a program of urban, peri-urban and rural holdings across the
Milton/Ulladulla region of New South Wales where the aim was to educate landholders about
the impact of foxes on their business and establish a fox shooting control program (Invasive
Animals Cooperative Research Centre, 2011); and an urban program in northern Sydney to
reduce the number of foxes impacting on native species in local bush reserves which raised
36
community awareness of the problem but at the same time raised unrealistic expectations of
the degree of control that was possible (Invasive Animals Cooperative Research Centre,
2012).
It is possible to assess these best-practice examples that are published and conclude that the
performance indicators for objective five are being met. However, these are only a very small
proportion of the fox control programs being undertaken and there is insufficient information
about other programs to make an accurate assessment of performance.
Other promotion
The Invasive Animals Cooperative Research Centre has two videos on foxes, one on how to
set foot-hold traps and the second on the development of the PAPP toxin bait for foxes
(Lapidge, Braysher, & Sarre, 2004-present). There are also videos that cover techniques for
both foxes and wild dogs including setting traps, lethal trap devices, and mechanical ejectors.
The Invasive Animals Cooperative Research Centre also ran a series of workshops or road
shows around all of Australia on best practice pest animal management in 2012.
The Australian Pest Animal Strategy (Natural Resources Management Ministerial Council,
2008) covers foxes and was promoted by the National Facilitator, Dr David Dall, from 20102013. This national strategy has the same principles for promotion of fox management as this
objective. Caring for our Country program proponents were able to contact Dr Dall for advice
on ensuring their fox management project was being undertaken in an appropriate manner
during the grant application process.
There are codes of practice and standard operating procedures for foxes. The model code of
practice (Sharp & Saunders, Model code of practice for the humane control of foxes, 2012)
provides information about the appropriate and humane methods to manage foxes and the
standard operating procedures (Sharp, 2012-2013) cover generic trapping using soft net traps
and methods of euthanasia; and fox-specific trapping using padded-jaw traps, fumigation of
fox dens using carbon monoxide, trapping of foxes using cage traps, ground shooting of foxes,
ground baiting of foxes using 1080, and aerial baiting of foxes using 1080.
Conclusion
There has been an increase in awareness raising materials since 2008 through the Invasive
Animals Cooperative Research Centre’s development of website and training materials. There
is also better, standardised training more widely available for vertebrate pest management
linked to the standard national curriculum. It is yet to be seen if this flows through to an
increase in levels of fox control undertaken in a more effective and humane way. The
PestSmart roadshows were very effective in reaching rural communities and promoting
vertebrate pest management.
It is hoped that fox control programs will apply better practice due to the promotion of the
model code of practice through the Invasive Animals Cooperative Research Centre, the
Australian Pest Animal Strategy Facilitator and through a requirement of all Australian
Government Caring for our Country applicants to use the code.
Evidence has not been found of any measurement of the degree of awareness of the threat
posed by foxes or the threat abatement plan actions and objectives. However, it should be
noted that this is difficult to measure in any meaningful way.
37
It can be concluded, as with all the other objectives, that some work has been undertaken to
increase the awareness of all stakeholders of the threat abatement plan and the need to
control and manage foxes. However, this work must be ongoing to ensure that stakeholders
who have direct control of land understand the need so they actually participate in control
programs, and those who don’t have direct control have the understanding to drive a
community expectation that foxes will be managed for biodiversity outcomes.
38
CONCLUSIONS
This review has identified that since 2008 a lot of work has been put into fox threat abatement:
research has been undertaken into foxes, priority threat abatement actions undertaken for
threatened species, new control products developed, and education materials developed to
train land managers and other stakeholders. Much of this work and subsequent positive
outcomes would not have occurred without the investment in, and focus on fox management,
by the Invasive Animals Cooperative Research Centre.
Specific conclusions against each objective have been outlined in each section. The actions
occurring are appropriate to current thinking on how to undertake threat abatement for a
species that cannot be eradicated. However, in terms of abating the threat to listed threatened
species, a further 27 species have been added to the lists where foxes are considered to be a
threat and none removed. Therefore it is concluded that the threat from the European red fox
has not been abated and a threat abatement plan or alternative threat abatement strategy is
still required.
LOOKING FORWARD
While undertaking the review, a number of possible future actions for threat abatement were
identified. These have been captured below. It is suggested that these concepts should be
considered in a future strategy for threat abatement – be that a revised threat abatement plan,
a strategy for threat abatement for predation by the fox or another document.

The concept of identifying high priority sites at a state or regional level for threatened
species, as has been done in NSW with their threat abatement plan, is useful. If other
jurisdictions have not done this systematically, it may be helpful for their state planning and
prioritisation of threatened species protection. It is acknowledged that most other
jurisdictions have structured programs for the protection of native species from fox
predation. While state-based processes have the potential to overlook nationally
threatened species or sites, this is considered unlikely. It is also noted that the Australian
Government is reliant on actions undertaken at a state or regional level to assist in abating
the threat.

Any systematic analysis of priority sites on a state or local level needs to be overlaid with
management options – what is actually feasible in these areas, and then a dose of
pragmatism about what can realistically be funded. It may be that not all sites should have
the same level of control – what can be managed and is sufficient to abate the threat to a
level that improves biodiversity outcomes. Effective monitoring is essential to
understanding the level of management required.

In the natural resource management and agricultural arena, it is important to understand
some of the unintended consequences of management activities. For example, improving
a patch of remnant bush or establishing a new planting may improve habitat for foxes as
well as for native flora and fauna. There is potential that fox predation may undo the
benefits of the improved flora.
39

The concept of how agricultural landholders, especially those linked to natural resource
management groups, are able to create landscape scale synergies in fox control programs
that benefit both agriculture and biodiversity, should be captured. Consideration will need
to be given to the threatened species being protected and their habitats in relation to
agricultural lands.

The concept of eradication of foxes from mainland islands is flawed (unless fenced).
Instead the focus should remain on strategic eradication from offshore islands and the
prevention of new incursions and establishments on other islands. Any island that is
accessible needs to have robust measures in place to prevent reinvasion. Where
necessary for threatened species protection, the further creation of fenced islands.

It is noted that conservation management plans for islands normally have biosecurity
contingency plans as part of the management strategy. However, this concept is still very
important.

There remains a need to apply incentives for fox management to promote cross tenure
control. The challenge is how to best integrate the ‘bottom-up’ identification of the need for
fox control by local land owners or conservation groups, with the ‘top-down’ national or
state level identification of need for fox control, which is driven by protection of key
threatened species. Both methods of identification are essential for a well-managed fox
control system.

A nationally or state coordinated standard or set of guidelines for fox control monitoring
would benefit groups running fox control programs. The standards would need to include
the monitoring of foxes as well as the monitoring of the threatened species being
protected.

In conjunction with the development of monitoring standards, is the need to provide
stakeholders with the tools to understand monitoring results. In particular the use of
remote cameras for monitoring needs to be combined with a statistically robust method for
understanding the resulting data.

The development of DNA techniques for use on scats has allowed researchers to refine
population data for foxes. Continued use of this tool will improve understanding of foxes in
the landscape and allow refinements to control programs.

The Tasmanian fox eradication program has developed or refined techniques to detect
foxes in very low densities. The findings from this program have the potential to be applied
elsewhere in Australia, especially where it is necessary to control foxes to very low
numbers to benefit a particular threatened species.

Research into the interactions of foxes and other species, especially the role of wild
dogs/dingoes, is at the stage of drawing out more questions than providing answers on
control methods. Further research is required into the interactions of the various invasive
carnivores (including dogs and cats), their interaction with native carnivores and also their
interaction with other species. While the role of rabbits in providing a food source for foxes
is known, more detail on the implications of the control of rabbits on fox populations and
their alternative prey would be helpful for land managers.

As with most of our invasive species, there has been little research into quantifying the
environmental costs of foxes and translating this into a metric (e.g. dollars). This concept
40
is captured in the current plan and it should remain as a need for the future, but with the
acknowledgement that broader environmental valuation techniques need to be developed
and accepted before they can be applied to the benefits to biodiversity of fox control.

While significant and important steps have been made in producing a new bait that is
much more target specific and humane, these baits will still need to be buried in situations
where there are native carnivores who may consume the bait. For efficiencies in human
resources it would be desirable if the next step in research and development of baits
allowed for broad-scale surface or aerial deployment.

The concept that we need research into a biocontrol or fertility control for foxes remains.
However, a future plan or strategy should not emphasise this at the expense of directing
funding for improvements to other control methods.

The delivery of training and materials for best practice methods for fox control now needs
improvement.

The Invasive Animals Cooperative Research Centre is funded until 2017. A legacy plan is
already being considered by the CRC but this needs to be planned by all stakeholders
including the Australian Government. In particular, research into control methods, and
education have been areas where the CRC has made particular gains that should be built
upon.
41
WORKS CITED
Allen, B. L., Fleming, P. J., Allen, L. R., Engeman, R. M., Ballard, G., & Leung, L. K.-P. (2013).
As clear as mud: A critical review of evidence for the ecological roles of Australian dingoes.
Biolgical Conservation, 159, 158-174.
Australian Government. (2013, August 23). Retrieved 29 August 2013, from Caring for our
Country: www.nrm.gov.au
Australian Government Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and
Communities. (2012, November 07). Feral Animals on Offshore Islands database. Retrieved
07 February 2013 from Australian Government Department of Sustainability, Environment,
Water, Population and Communities:
http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/invasive/ferals/islands/index.html
Australian Government. (2013, August 23). Monitoring, evaluation, reporting and improvement.
Retrieved 29 August 2013 from Caring for our Country:
http://www.nrm.gov.au/funding/meri/index.html
Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority. (2007). The reconsideration of
registrations of products containing sodium fluoroacetate and approvals of their associated
labels. Canberra: Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority.
Australian Wildlife Conservancy. (no date). Karakamia Sanctuary. Retrieved 5 August 2013,
from Australian Wildlife Conservancy: http://www.australianwildlife.org/AWCSanctuaries/Karakamia-Sanctuary.aspx
Berry, O., & Kirkwood, R. (2010). Measuring recruitment in an invasive species to determine
eradication potential. Journal of Wildlife Management, 74 (8), 1661-1670.
Berry, O., Algar, D., Angus, J., Hamilton, N., Hilmer, S., & Sutherland, D. (2012). Genetic
tagging reveals a significant impact of poison baiting on an invasive species. The Journal of
Wildlife Management, 76 (4), 729-739.
Brown, M., & Munckton, C. (2010). Scoping study: Training and capacity building in vertebrate
pest management. Canberra: Invasive Animals Cooperative Research Centre.
Buckmaster, A. J. (2011). Ecology of the feral cat (Felis catus) in the tall forests of Far East
Gippsland. Sydney: PhD Thesis, University of Sydney.
Byrant, G. L. (2012). Biology of the south-west carpet python (Morelia spilota imbricata): is
there evidence for mesopredator release in response to fox baiting? Perth: PhD Thesis,
Murdoch University.
Caley, P., Tennant, P., & Hood, G. (2011). Modelling the distribution of vertebrate pests in
New South Wales under climate change. PestSmart. Canberra: Invasive Animals Cooperative
Research Centre.
Carter, A., Luck, G. W., & McDonald, S. P. (2011). Fox-baiting in agricultural landscapes in
south-eastern Australia: a case-study appraisal and suggestions for improvement. Ecological
Management and Restoration, 12 (3), 214-223.
42
Claridge, A. W., Murray, A. J., Dawson, J., Poore, R., Mifsud, G., & Saxon, M. J. (2006). The
propensity of spotted-tailed quolls (Dasyurus maculatus) to encounter and consume non-toxic
meat baits in a simulated canid-control program. Wildlife Research, 33, 85-91.
Claridge, A. W., & Mills, D. J. (2007). Aerial baiting for wild dogs has no observable impact on
spotted-tailed quolls (Dasyurus maculatus) in a rainshadow woodland. Wildlife Research, 34,
116-124.
Cupples, J. B., Crowther, M. S., Story, G., & Letnic, M. (2011). Dietary overlap and prey
selectivity among sympatric carnivores: could dingoes suppress foxes through competition for
prey? Journal of Mammalogy, 92 (3), 590-600.
Department of Environment and Primary Industries. (2013, May 10). Glenelg Ark. Retrieved
July 2013 from Victorian Government Department of Environment and Primary Industries:
http://www.dse.vic.gov.au/plants-and-animals/invasive-species/weeds-and-pestsprojects/glenelg-ark
Department of Environment and Primary Industries. (2013, May 10). Southern Ark. Retrieved
July 2013 from Victorian Government Department of Environment and Primary Industries:
http://www.dse.vic.gov.au/plants-and-animals/invasive-species/weeds-and-pestsprojects/southern-ark
Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources. (2013, July 23). Bouncback.
Retrieved July 2013 from South Australian Department of Environment, Water and Natural
Resources: http://www.environment.sa.gov.au/managing-naturalresources/Ecosystem_conservation/Bounceback
Department of Environment and Conservation. (2013, July 1). Western Shield. Retrieved July
2013 from Western Australian Government Department of Evironment and Conservation:
http://www.dec.wa.gov.au/management-andprotection/animals/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&id=299&Itemid=1631
Department of Parks and Wildlife. (2009). Dirk Hartog Island Ecological Restoration Project.
Retrieved 28 August 2013 from Project Eden: http://www.sharkbay.org/DHIERP.aspx
Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and the Environment. (2013, June 26).
Tasmania's fox eradication program. Retrieved 29 August 2013, from Invasive Species:
http://www.dpiw.tas.gov.au/inter.nsf/ThemeNodes/LBUN-96T3US?open
Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities. (2013,
August 13). Biodiversity Fund. Retrieved 29 August 2013, from Department of Sustainability,
Environment, Water, Population and Communities:
http://www.environment.gov.au/cleanenergyfuture/biodiversity-fund/index.html
Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities. (2013, July
16). Species Profile and Threats Database - Petrogale lateralis lateralis - black-flanked rock
wallaby. Retrieved 2 August 2013 from Australian Government Department of Sustainability,
Environment, Water, Population and Communities: http://www.environment.gov.au/cgibin/sprat/public/publicspecies.pl?taxon_id=66647
Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities. (2012,
January 30). Species Profiles and Threats Database. Retrieved 29 August 2013, from
43
Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities:
http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/sprat/public/sprat.pl
Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communitites. (2013,
January 25). Species Profile and Threats Database . Retrieved 13 August 2013 from
Australian Government Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and
Communitites: http://www.environment.gov.au/cgibin/sprat/public/publicspeciessolrsearch.pl?new_facet=f%5Fthreat%5Fclass%3AInvasive+and
+Other+Problematic+Species+and+Genes%3AInvasive+Non%2DNative%2FAlien+Species%
3ACompetition+and%2For+predation%3ACanis+lupus+familiaris
Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts. (2008). Threat abatement plan
for predation by the European red fox. Canberra: DEWHA.
Dexter, N., Ramsey, D. S., MacGregor, C., & Lindenmeyer, D. (2012). Predicting ecosystem
wide impacts of wallaby management using a fuzzy cognitive map. Ecosystems, 1-17.
Diment, A. N. (2010). Monitoring the ecological impacts of invasive predator control. Sydney:
PhD Thesis, University of Sydney.
Ecosure. (2009). Prioritisation of high conservation status of offshore islands. Cairns,
Queensland: Ecosure.
Elliott, S. (2013, August 08). Winter bettong trapping at Arid Recovery. Retrieved 12 August
2013 from Arid Recovery :
http://www.aridrecovery.org.au/_blog/Arid_Recovery_News/post/winter-bettong-trapping-atarid-recovery/
Fitzgerald, G., & Wilkinson, R. (2009). Assessing the social impact of invasive animals in
Australia. Canberra: Invasive Animals Cooperative Research Centre.
Fleming, P. J., Ballard, G., & Allen, B. (2013). Interim report on: Predator-prey interaction
review and workshop proceedings. NSW Department of Primary Industries. Canberra:
Invasive Animals Cooperative Research Centre.
Glen, A. S., & Dickman, C. R. (2008). Niche overlap between marsupial and eutherian
carnivores: does competition threaten the endangered spotted-tailed quoll? Journal of Applied
Ecology, 45, 700-707.
Glen, A.S., & Dickman, C.R. (2013). Population viability analysis shows spotted-tailed quolls
may be vulnerable to competition. Australian Mammalogy, 35, 180-183.
Gong, W., Sinden, J., Braysher, M., & Jones, R. (2009). The economic impacts of vertebrate
pests in Australia. Canberra: Invasive Animals Cooperative Research Centre.
Hughes, C., Gaffney, R., & Dickman, C. R. (2011). A preliminary study assessing risk to
Tasmanian devils from poisioning for red foxes. Journal of Wildlife Management, 75 (2), 385392.
Hunt, R. J., Dall, D. J., & Lapidge, S. J. (2007). Effect of a syntehtic lure on site visitation and
bait uptake by foxes (Vulpes vulpes) and wild dogs (Canis lupus dingo, Canis lupus familiaris).
Wildlife Research, 34, 461-466.
44
Invasive Animals Cooperative Research Centre. (2011, September). Case study: Coordinated
fox shooting program. Retrieved 23 August 2012 from PestSmart: www.feral.org.au/pestmart
Invasive Animals Cooperative Research Centre. (2012, May). Case study: foxes on Phillip
Island. Retrieved July 2013 from www.feral.org.au/pestsmart/foxes.
Invasive Animals Cooperative Research Centre. (2012, August). Case Study: Northern
Sydney regional fox baiting program. Retrieved 23 August 2013 from PestSmart:
www.feral.org.au
Invasive Animals Cooperative Research Centre. (no date). Feral Focus. Retrieved 23 August
2013 from Feral Focus: http://www.feralfocus.org.au/
Invasive Animals Cooperative Research Centre. (2011, May). Fox bounties. Retrieved 5
August 2013 from Pest Smart: foxes: http://www.feral.org.au/pestsmart/foxes/
Invasive Animals Cooperative Research Centre. (2012). IA CRC Product Pipeline. Retrieved
15 August 2013 from PestSmart: http://www.feral.org.au/pestsmart/foxes/
Invasive Animals Cooperative Research Centre. (2010). Land Pest Products and Strategies.
Retrieved 28 August 2013 from Invasive Animals Cooperative Research Centre:
http://www.invasiveanimals.com/research/phase2/land-pests/
Invasive Animals Cooperative Research Centre. (no date). Pestales. Retrieved 23 August
2013 from Pestales: http://www.pestales.org.au/
Invasive Animals Cooperative Research Centre. (2011). PestSmart DVD: Introduction to using
foot hold traps for the capture of wild dogs and foxes. Retrieved 29 August 2013 from
PestSmart: http://www.feral.org.au/ifoot-hold-traps-for-wild-dogs-and-foxes-dvd/
Invasive Animals Cooperative Research Centre. (2013, May). Pestsmart Foxes in Tasmania.
Retrieved 9 August 2013 from Pestsmart: http://www.feral.org.au/pestsmart-foxes-in-tasmania/
Johnston, C. N., & VanDerWal, J. (2009). Evidence that dingoes limit abundance of a
mesopredator in eastern Australian forests. Journal of Applied Ecology, 46, 641-646.
Jones, R., Saunders, G., & Balogh, S. (2006). An economic evaluation of a pest management
control program: 'Outfox the fox'. Orange: NSW Department of Primary Industries.
Kitchell, M., Braysher, M., Woolnough, A., & Cameron, E. (2013) Fox Eradication Program
review panel report. Report for the Tasmanian Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water
and Environment.
Kortner, G., & Watson, P. (2005). The immediate impact of 1080 aerial baiting to control wild
dogs on a spotted-tailed quoll population. Wildlife Research, 32, 673-680.
Kortner, G. (2007). 1080 aerial baiting for the control of wild dogs and its impact on spottedtailed quoll (Dasyurus maculatus) populations in eastern Australia. Wildlife Research, 34, 4853.
Lapidge, K., Braysher, M., & Sarre, S. (2004-present). PestSmart: Foxes website. (Invasive
Animals Cooperative Research Centre) Retrieved 23 August 2013 from feral.org.au:
http://www.feral.org.au/pestsmart/foxes/
45
Letnic, M., Crowther, M. S., & Koch, F. (2009a). Does a top-predator provide an endangered
rodent with refuge from an invasive mesopredator? Animal Conservation, 12, 302-312.
Letnic, M., Koch, F., Gordon, C., Crowther, M. S., & Dickman, C. R. (2009b). Keystone effects
of an alien top-predator stem extinctions of native mammals. Proceedings of the Royal Society
Biological Sciences, 276, 3249-3256.
Lindenmayer, D. B., MacGregor, C., Welsh, A., Donnelly, C., Crane, M., Michael, D., et al.
(2008). Contrasting mammal responses to vegetation type and fire. Wildlife Research, 35,
395-408.
Marks, C. A., Gigliotti, F., & Busana, F. (2009). Assuring that 1080 toxicosis in the red fox
(Vulpes vulpes) is humane. II Analgesis drugs product better welfare outcomes. Wildlife
Research, 36, 98-105.
McLeod, L. (2013). Glovebox guide for managing foxes. Canberra, ACT: Invasive Animals
Cooperative Research Centre.
McLeod, L. J., Saunders, G. R., McLeod, S. R., Dawson, M., & van de Ven, R. (2010). The
potential for participatory landscape management to reduce the impact of the red fox (Vulpes
vulpes) on lamb production. Wildlife Research, 37, 695-701.
Meek, P. D., Ballard, G.A., & Fleming, P. J. (2013). A permanent security post for camera
trapping. Australian Mammalogy, 35, 123-127.
Mitchell, B., & Balogh, S. (2007). Monitoring techniques for vertebrate pests: foxes. Orange,
NSW: NSW Department of Primary Industries.
Moseby, K. E., & Hill, B. M. (2011). The use of poison baits to control feral cats and red foxes
in arid South Australia I. Aerial baiting trials. Wildlife Research, 38, 338-349.
Mitchell, B. D., & Banks, P. B. (2005). Do wild dogs exclude foxes? Evidence for competition
from dietary and spatial overlaps. Austral Ecology (30), 581-591.
Natural Resources Management Ministerial Council. (2008). Australian Pest Animal Strategy.
Canberra: Australian Government.
Natural Resources South Australia. (2013). NRM Community Grants. Retrieved 5 August
2013, from Natural Resources South Australia:
http://www.nrm.sa.gov.au/Funding/CommunityGrants.aspx
NSW DECCW. (2010). Draft Threat Abatement Plan for Predation by the Red Fox (Vulpes
vulpes). Hurstville: New South Wales Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water.
NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service. (2010, June). Ejector field trial update No.4.
Retrieved 20 August 2013 from feral.org.au: http://www.feral.org.au/wpcontent/uploads/2011/07/M44newsletter4_June10.pdf
Pavey, C. R., Eldridge, S. R., & Heywood, M. (2008). Population dynamics and prey selection
of native and introduced predators during a rodent outbreak in arid Australia. Journal of
Mammaology, 89, 674-683.
46
Premier of Victoria. (2013, January 13). Media releases. Retrieved 5 August 2013 from
Coalition doubles bounty on wild dogs: http://www.premier.vic.gov.au/media-centre/mediareleases/5812-coalition-doubles-bounty-on-wild-dogs.html
Red Card for Rabbits and Foxes program. (2013). Red Card for rabbits and foxes. Retrieved
July 2013 from Red Card for Rabbits and Foxes program:
http://www.redcard.net.au/index.html
Robley, A.,Gormley, A., Albert, R., Bowd, M., Hatfield, C., McDonald, R., Scroggie, M., Smith,
A., Thorp, A., & Warton, F. (2012). Glenelg Ark 2005-2011: Evidence of sustained control of
foxes and benefits for native mammals. Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmetnal Research
Technical Report Series No. 240. Department of Sustainability and Environment, Heidlelburg,
Victora.
Robley, A., Lindeman, M., Dam, D., Cook, I. (2011). Identification of semiochemical markers in
dingo urine: Method development and qualitative comparisons. Arthur Rylah Institute for
Environmental Research Project Update Report. Department of Sustainability and
Environment, Heidlelburg, Victora.
Sharp, T. (2012-2013). Standard operating procedures: foxes. Canberra: Invasive Animals
Cooperative Research Centre.
Sharp, T., & Saunders, G. Model code of practice for the humane control of foxes. Orange:
Department of Primary Industries, NSW.
Sharp, T., & Saunders, G. (2012). Model code of practice for the humane control of foxes.
Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities. Canberra:
Invasive Animals Cooperative Research Centre.
Strive, T., Hardy, C. M., & Reubel, G. H. (2007). Prospects for immunocontraception in the
European red fox (Vulpes vulpes). Wildlife Research, 34, 523-529.
Sutherland, D. R., Glen, A. S., & de Tores, P. J. (2010). Could controlling mammalian
carnivores lead to mesopredator release of carnivorous reptiles? Proceedings of the Royal
Society Biological Sciences, 1-9.
Towerton, A. L., Penman, T. D., Kavanagh, R. P., & Dickman, C. R. (2011). Detecting pest
and prey reponses to fox control across the landscape using remote cameras. Wildlife
Research, 38, 208-220.
Vine, S. J., Crowther, M. S., Lapidge, S. J., Dickman, C. R., Mooney, N., Piggott, M. P., et al.
(2009). Comparison of methods to detect rare and cryptic species: a case study using the red
fox (Vulpes vulpes). Wildlife Research, 36, 436-446.
WA State NRM Office. (2013, February 03). Grants page. Retrieved 5 August 2013 from
Natural Resource Management in Western Australia: http://www.nrm.wa.gov.au/projects.aspx
Warrnambool City Council. (2013). Middle Island Mareema Project. Retrieved 29 August
2013, from Warrnambool City Council:
http://www.warrnambool.vic.gov.au/index.php?q=node/943
47
Wheeler, R., & Priddel, D. (2009). The impact of introduced predators on two threatened prey
species: a case study from western New South Wales. Ecologcial Management and
Restoration, 10 (S1), S117-123.
Wildlife Queensland. (2013). Bridled Nailtailed Wallaby. Retrieved July 2013 from Wildlife
Queensland:
http://www.wildlife.org.au/wildlife/speciesprofile/mammals/bridled_nailtail_wallaby.html
Wildlife Research Management. (2011, May 18). Reconstructing the fauna of the central
wheatbelt – reintroductions to Wadderin Sanctuary. Retrieved 5 August 2013 from Wildlife
Research Management: http://www.wildliferesearchmanagement.com.au/wadderin.htm
48
APPENDICES
Appendix A: Islands with foxes
ISLAND NAME
ALTERNATE
NAME
ISLAND
GROUP
STATE
PRESENCE
PRESENCE
COMMENT
DAMPIER
ARCHIPELAGO
WA
ERADICATED
SA
OCCASIONAL
natural
spread,
eradicated
1989/90
May not be
resident,
accessing
occasionally,
only at low
tide
BENNISON
ISLAND
VIC
ERADICATED
BIG DOG
ISLAND
VIC
BRIBIE ISLAND
BROULEE
ISLAND
ANGEL ISLAND
BAIRD ISLAND
UNNAMED
ISLAND BAIRD
BAY
REFERENCE
DIST FROM
MAINLAND
(km)
LONG
LAT
ISLAND
AREA
(ha)
1.61
116.805069
-20.493102
916.24
0.63
134.283938
-33.081596
15.60
Johnston, M, (2008), Introduced animals on
Victorian islands: improving Australia's ability to
protect its island habitats from feral animals.
Department of Sustainability and Environment.
1.82
146.369386
-38.842375
5.74
PRESENT
Johnston, M, (2008), Introduced animals on
Victorian islands: improving Australia's ability to
protect its island habitats from feral animals.
Department of Sustainability and Environment.
0.47
146.547659
-38.696694
134.52
QLD
PRESENT
Bell S, Le Grand J, Calvert M, Paping P, Bryant M
(2008). Introduced animals on Queensland islands.
Queensland Department of Primary Industries and
Fisheries.
0.26
153.135368
-26.986692
14756.9
7
NSW
PRESENT
NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service (2008).
Broulee Island Nature Reserve Plan of
Management. NSW National Parks and Wildlife
Service.
0.28
150.187946
-35.857761
27.10
SA Dept for Environment and Heritage, Introduced
Animals on South Australia's Islands: Improving
Australia's ability to protect its island habitats from
feral animals, 2008
49
COMMENT
updated
May 2010
updated
November
2009. This
island
connected
to the
mainland.
ISLAND NAME
STATE
PRESENCE
WA
PRESENT
WA
PRESENT
CHINAMAN
ISLAND
VIC
PRESENT
Johnston, M, (2008), Introduced animals on
Victorian islands: improving Australia's ability to
protect its island habitats from feral animals.
Department of Sustainability and Environment.
CHURCHILL
ISLAND
VIC
ERADICATED
Johnston, M, (2008), Introduced animals on
Victorian islands: improving Australia's ability to
protect its island habitats from feral animals.
Department of Sustainability and Environment.
WA
PRESENT
QLD
PRESENT
WA
PRESENT
VIC
PRESENT
WA
ERADICATED
WA
PRESENT
BURNSIDE
ISLAND
CAREY ISLAND
COHEN ISLAND
ALTERNATE
NAME
ISLAND
GROUP
DAMPIER
ARCHIPELAGO
DAMPIER
ARCHIPELAGO
CURTIS ISLAND
DEPUCH
ISLAND
FORESTIER
ISLANDS
DOG ISLAND
DOLPHIN
ISLAND
DOWNES
ISLAND
DAMPIER
ARCHIPELAGO
PRESENCE
COMMENT
REFERENCE
COMMENT
tracks
eradication
planned for
2006,
presence to
be
confirmed
natural
spread from
mainland
updated
January
2010
DIST FROM
MAINLAND
(km)
LONG
LAT
ISLAND
AREA
(ha)
0.46
114.510821
-22.102670
76.73
0.69
116.176323
-20.948129
71.57
0.26
145.311615
-38.238536
47.84
1.97
145.338998
-38.500787
58.69
Department of Conservation and Land
Management (1990). Dampier Archipelago Nature
Reserves Management Plan 1990-2000.
updated
December
2009
15.09
116.805042
-20.386437
12.50
http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/corp_site/info_service
s/publications/sotr/latest_updates/seabirds/respo
nse
updated
February
2010
0.13
151.151976
-23.612381
57646.0
0
2.71
117.725480
-20.632267
1136.56
0.16
146.718493
-38.677963
443.20
0.38
116.853664
-20.484326
3306.03
0.11
118.512401
-20.315977
306.68
Johnston, M, (2008), Introduced animals on
Victorian islands: improving Australia's ability to
protect its island habitats from feral animals.
Department of Sustainability and Environment.
natural
spread,
eradicated
1980-85
tracks
observed
50
ISLAND NAME
ALTERNATE
NAME
ISLAND
GROUP
STATE
PRESENCE
PRESENCE
COMMENT
REFERENCE
COMMENT
DIST FROM
MAINLAND
(km)
LONG
LAT
ISLAND
AREA
(ha)
0.55
146.853889
-38.653310
368.01
0.27
137.546914
-33.987175
1.63
1.36
116.683488
-20.653544
233.10
0.72
146.805571
-38.662131
292.99
0.50
134.269705
-32.678351
99.67
0.05
146.274970
-38.698968
260.29
2.09
115.676724
-32.201833
1209.45
1995
DREAM ISLAND
VIC
PRESENT
EAST BIRD
ISLAND
BIRD ISLANDS
SA
OCCASIONAL
EAST
INTERCOURSE
ISLAND
DAMPIER
ARCHIPELAGO
WA
PRESENT
EAST SCRUBBY
ISLAND
VIC
PRESENT
EBA ISLAND
SA
OCCASIONAL
FRANKLIN
ISLAND
VIC
PRESENT
GARDEN
ISLAND
WA
UNKNOWN
Johnston, M, (2008), Introduced animals on
Victorian islands: improving Australia's ability to
protect its island habitats from feral animals.
Department of Sustainability and Environment.
May not be
resident,
accessing
occasionally,
only at low
tide
causeway to
mainland
1963
SA Dept for Environment and Heritage, Introduced
Animals on South Australia's Islands: Improving
Australia's ability to protect its island habitats from
feral animals, 2008
updated
May 2010
Johnston, M, (2008), Introduced animals on
Victorian islands: improving Australia's ability to
protect its island habitats from feral animals.
Department of Sustainability and Environment.
May not be
resident,
accessing
occasionally,
only at low
tide
Department for Environment and Heritage (2006).
Island Parks of Western Eyre Peninsula
Management Plan. Department for Environment
and Heritage. Adelaide, South Australia.
Johnston, M, (2008), Introduced animals on
Victorian islands: improving Australia's ability to
protect its island habitats from feral animals.
Department of Sustainability and Environment.
reported on
causeway,
but not
established
on island
51
updated
May 2010
ISLAND NAME
ALTERNATE
NAME
ISLAND
GROUP
STATE
PRESENCE
PRESENCE
COMMENT
REFERENCE
COMMENT
DIST FROM
MAINLAND
(km)
LONG
LAT
ISLAND
AREA
(ha)
SA
OCCASIONAL
SA Dept for Environment and Heritage, Introduced
Animals on South Australia's Islands: Improving
Australia's ability to protect its island habitats from
feral animals, 2008
updated
May 2010
0.58
134.674519
-33.209208
197.15
WA
ERADICATED
May not be
resident,
accessing
occasionally,
only at low
tide
natural
spread,
eradicated
1980,
reinvaded?
baited
1989, now
absent
6.12
116.818135
-20.450485
848.21
GRANITE
ISLAND
SA
PRESENT
SA Dept for Environment and Heritage, Introduced
Animals on South Australia's Islands: Improving
Australia's ability to protect its island habitats from
feral animals, 2008
0.52
138.630164
-35.564364
27.87
GRIFFITH
ISLAND
VIC
PRESENT
Johnston, M, (2008), Introduced animals on
Victorian islands: improving Australia's ability to
protect its island habitats from feral animals.
Department of Sustainability and Environment.
0.00
142.246532
-38.393878
61.98
WA
ERADICATED
14.09
116.967278
-20.434214
103.05
HINCHINBROOK
ISLAND
QLD
PRESENT
Updated
February
2010
0.72
146.235736
-18.355248
39613.4
0
HOPE ISLAND
WA
PRESENT
May be
considered
as
mainland
0.00
114.474783
-22.170485
690.72
GERMEIN
ISLAND
GIDLEY ISLAND
HAUY ISLAND
DAMPIER
ARCHIPELAGO
DAMPIER
ARCHIPELAGO
May be
considered
as
mainland connected
by a land
bridge
eradicated
1980s
http://www.derm.qld.gov.au/wildlifeecosystems/wildlife/wildlife_online/generate_a_s
pecies_list_for_a_selected_area.php#selected_are
a
52
ISLAND NAME
STATE
PRESENCE
HUNTER
ISLAND
VIC
PRESENT
ISLAND POINT
SA
PRESENT
QLD
PRESENT
KANGAROO
ISLAND
ALTERNATE
NAME
ISLAND
GROUP
BOONNAHBAH
PRESENCE
COMMENT
one recently
sighted
REFERENCE
COMMENT
DIST FROM
MAINLAND
(km)
LONG
LAT
ISLAND
AREA
(ha)
Johnston, M, (2008), Introduced animals on
Victorian islands: improving Australia's ability to
protect its island habitats from feral animals.
Department of Sustainability and Environment.
May be
considered
as
mainland
0.00
146.770129
-38.656051
196.66
Department for Environment and Heritage (2009).
Althorpes Islands, Goose Island and Troubridge
Island Conservation Parks Management Plan.
Department for Environment and Heritage.
updated
November
2009
0.07
137.413249
-34.443828
3.71
Point location data held by DEWHA
updated
January
2010
0.28
153.382465
-27.770602
644.19
KEAST ISLAND
DAMPIER
ARCHIPELAGO
WA
ERADICATED
natural
spread,
eradicated
13.85
116.830969
-20.389694
40.60
LEGENDRE
ISLAND
DAMPIER
ARCHIPELAGO
WA
ERADICATED
natural
spread,
eradicated
1980
13.34
116.879671
-20.386310
1320.15
LITTLE DOG
ISLAND
VIC
PRESENT
Johnston, M, (2008), Introduced animals on
Victorian islands: improving Australia's ability to
protect its island habitats from feral animals.
Department of Sustainability and Environment.
0.35
146.562307
-38.689298
75.72
LITTLE SNAKE
ISLAND
VIC
PRESENT
Johnston, M, (2008), Introduced animals on
Victorian islands: improving Australia's ability to
protect its island habitats from feral animals.
Department of Sustainability and Environment.
0.94
146.466234
-38.718617
532.22
MACKENZIE
ISLAND
QLD
PRESENT
Point location data held by DEWHA
0.40
150.862491
-23.511165
170.88
MANGROVE
ROOT ISLAND
VIC
PRESENT
Johnston, M, (2008), Introduced animals on
Victorian islands: improving Australia's ability to
protect its island habitats from feral animals.
Department of Sustainability and Environment.
2.34
146.730781
-38.684777
9.33
53
updated
January
2010
ISLAND NAME
ALTERNATE
NAME
ISLAND
GROUP
STATE
PRESENCE
VIC
PRESENT
WA
ERADICATED
VIC
PRESENT
MUTTONBIRD
ISLAND
NSW
ERADICATED
NORTH
STRADBROKE
ISLAND
QLD
PRESENT
PHILLIP ISLAND
VIC
PIGFACE
ISLAND
QUAIL ISLAND
MERRI ISLAND
MIDDLE GIDLEY
ISLAND
MIDDLE ISLAND
DAMPIER
ARCHIPELAGO
PRESENCE
COMMENT
REFERENCE
COMMENT
DIST FROM
MAINLAND
(km)
LONG
LAT
ISLAND
AREA
(ha)
0.05
142.470866
-38.402246
0.11
9.23
116.822604
-20.424189
230.82
0.16
142.471921
-38.403534
1.15
0.00
153.151584
-30.305132
11.74
Bell S, Le Grand J, Calvert M, Paping P, Bryant M
(2008). Introduced animals on Queensland islands.
Queensland Department of Primary Industries and
Fisheries.
3.56
153.454366
-27.545639
26948.9
7
PRESENT
Johnston, M, (2008), Introduced animals on
Victorian islands: improving Australia's ability to
protect its island habitats from feral animals.
Department of Sustainability and Environment.
0.44
145.240868
-38.490601
10129.0
7
SA
PRESENT
SA Dept for Environment and Heritage, Introduced
Animals on South Australia's Islands: Improving
Australia's ability to protect its island habitats from
feral animals, 2008
0.56
134.278017
-32.695284
7.13
VIC
PRESENT
Johnston, M, (2008), Introduced animals on
Victorian islands: improving Australia's ability to
protect its island habitats from feral animals.
Department of Sustainability and Environment.
0.26
145.292385
-38.233605
533.28
Johnston, M, (2008), Introduced animals on
Victorian islands: improving Australia's ability to
protect its island habitats from feral animals.
Department of Sustainability and Environment.
natural
spread,
eradicated
ca 1989,
now absent
absent since
introduction
of
maremma
guard dogs
Johnston, M, (2008), Introduced animals on
Victorian islands: improving Australia's ability to
protect its island habitats from feral animals.
Department of Sustainability and Environment.
This island
connected
to the
mainland
54
ISLAND NAME
STATE
PRESENCE
DIST FROM
MAINLAND
(km)
LONG
LAT
ISLAND
AREA
(ha)
REEF ISLAND
VIC
PRESENT
0.30
145.407799
-38.469470
10.32
SLOPE ISLAND
WA
PRESENT
2.06
113.414328
-26.090609
1.93
VIC
PRESENT
Johnston, M, (2008), Introduced animals on
Victorian islands: improving Australia's ability to
protect its island habitats from feral animals.
Department of Sustainability and Environment.
2.35
146.536051
-38.756499
4461.49
SOUTH
STRADBROKE
ISLAND
QLD
PRESENT
http://www.goldcoast.qld.gov.au/attachment/envi
ronment/south_stradbroke_management_flora.pd
f
0.22
153.424613
-27.838412
2022.52
ST MARGARET
ISLAND
VIC
PRESENT
Johnston, M, (2008), Introduced animals on
Victorian islands: improving Australia's ability to
protect its island habitats from feral animals.
Department of Sustainability and Environment.
0.09
146.832056
-38.629191
1888.99
SUNDAY
ISLAND
VIC
PRESENT
Johnston, M, (2008), Introduced animals on
Victorian islands: improving Australia's ability to
protect its island habitats from feral animals.
Department of Sustainability and Environment.
1.32
146.631351
-38.710538
1192.36
SWAN ISLAND
VIC
PRESENT
Johnston, M, (2008), Introduced animals on
Victorian islands: improving Australia's ability to
protect its island habitats from feral animals.
Department of Sustainability and Environment.
0.61
144.680645
-38.248059
289.26
TENT ISLAND
WA
PRESENT
0.30
114.524980
-22.024407
1911.98
TORRENS
ISLAND
SA
PRESENT
0.36
138.528183
-34.789935
747.85
SNAKE ISLAND
ALTERNATE
NAME
LA TROBE
ISLAND
ISLAND
GROUP
PRESENCE
COMMENT
REFERENCE
COMMENT
Johnston, M, (2008), Introduced animals on
Victorian islands: improving Australia's ability to
protect its island habitats from feral animals.
Department of Sustainability and Environment.
Problem to
bird
breeding on
nearby sand
bar: Greg
Johnson
2007.
Peter Canty (SA DEH) pers comm. May 2010
55
Updated
February
2010
ISLAND NAME
ALTERNATE
NAME
ISLAND
GROUP
WEDGE ISLAND
WEST BIRD
ISLAND
BIRD ISLANDS
STATE
PRESENCE
PRESENCE
COMMENT
WA
PRESENT
natural
spread
SA
PRESENT
REFERENCE
SA Dept for Environment and Heritage, Introduced
Animals on South Australia's Islands: Improving
Australia's ability to protect its island habitats from
feral animals, 2008
56
COMMENT
DIST FROM
MAINLAND
(km)
LONG
LAT
ISLAND
AREA
(ha)
0.27
115.188903
-30.828494
5.91
0.21
137.537684
-33.984855
63.96
Appendix B: High priority offshore islands with foxes
Bribie Island, Queensland
Curtis Island, Queensland
Dream Island, Victoria
East Intercourse Island, Dampier Archipelago, Western Australia (top 100, lower 50)
East Scrubby Island, Victoria
Franklin Island, Victoria (top 100, lower 50)
Hinchinbrook Island, Queensland (top 100)
Little Snake Island, Victoria (top 100, lower 50)
North Stradbroke Island, Queensland (top 100)
Phillip Island, Victoria (top 100)
Quail Island, Victoria (top 100)
Snake Island, Victoria (top 100, lower 50)
St Margaret Island, Victoria (top 100, lower 50)
Sunday Island, Victoria (top 100, lower 50)
Swan Island, Victoria (top 100)
Data from the Prioritisation of high conservation status offshore islands (Ecosure, 2009).
57
Appendix C: Caring for our Country projects with a fox component
Year
Grant #
State
Proponent
Title
2008-09
.
NSW
Central West
Catchment
Management
Authority
Activities include protecting native vegetation and fauna on private and public land and
controlling foxes and other pests. Priorities also include identifying fragile groundwater
dependent ecosystems for conservation and supporting farmers in their adoption of
sustainable practices including improving soil health and controlling weeds.
3,240,000
2008-09
.
NSW
Western
Catchment
Management
Authority
A significant priority is improving native pasture and groundcover on grazing land and
mitigating the spread of invasive scrub. Other activities include controlling pig, fox and wild
dog populations and implementing voluntary conservation management plans along 32 kms
of priority river corridors.
2,400,000
2008-09
.
QLD
QMDC Inc
Activities include controlling feral pigs, cats, foxes and aquatic pests such as mosquito fish
and European carp. Other priorities include improving ecosystem connectivity, increasing
the extent of remnant vegetation, improving wetland health and treating erosion on
agricultural land.
2,640,000
2008-09
.
SA
SA Arid Lands
NRM Board
Activities to assist Indigenous and non-Indigenous land managers to improve their
management of pest animals and plants (such as Opuntia) in the rangelands to reduce their
impact and spread. This will be supported by development of cross-regional strategies to
manage large vertebrate pests (camels, donkeys and horses) and feral cats and foxes. The
effect of dingo management on stock losses will be investigated and land managers will be
supported to improve protection of threatened species (such as the yellow-footed rock
wallaby), remnant vegetation and biodiversity. The Arid Recovery program at Roxby Downs
will be supported in partnership with industry and the community.
1,800,000
2008-09
.
SA
South East NRM
Board
This project focuses on restoring several wetlands, investigating salt water intrusion into
aquifers, improving the health of Lake George, encouraging sustainable water use and assist
protecting Blue Lake. It will investigate changes to soils resulting from the Upper South East
drainage system and the best pastures to grow, and will improve management of soil
salinity for wine quality at Padthaway. The project will develop an information system on
fire history and an invasive species biosecurity strategy, assist recovery of threatened
species, and will undertake control of deer, foxes and Weeds of National Significance.
2,612,000
.
Description
58
Funding (GST
Excl)
Year
Grant #
State
Proponent
Title
Description
2008-09
CC083625
NSW
Randwick City
Council
Bumborah Point bushland
restoration project
The project will improve the flora and fauna habitat of Bumborah Point by removing weeds,
including primarily Bitou bush, installing soil erosion control measures and revegetating.
Standard bush regeneration techniques will be applied. Bumborah Point is located on the
northern shores of Botany Bay just east of Sydney Ports. It is the last section of the Botany
Bay foreshore under Randwick Council's (RCC) care, to be restored. Botany Bay is an
identified State biodiversity hot spot. Bumborah Point is also a significant section Randwick
City's Coastal Fauna Corridor, linking Yarra Beach dunes to the east to the weedy, but useful
fauna habitat, on Sydney Electricity and Crown land to the North West. This project will
build on Bitou bush control work commenced in 2007 by RCC with Dept Primary Industry
funding. It will include primary and secondary weeding in remnant soils and revegetation in
areas without a seed bank. Fox and stray cat control will also be continued.
37,018
2008-09
CC082627
NSW
Mates Of The
Manning
Endangered shorebird program
This project will minimise disturbance to shorebird nesting sites and dovetails with the
current management of endangered shorebirds such as the Little Tern, Pied Oystercatcher,
and Beach-stone Curlew in the Manning River estuaries. Signage will be erected that better
illustrates this issue and educates the public on correct behaviour when using these areas
recreationally. The project also entails increased fox control measures in the form of yearround baiting. Educational resources will be developed for handout at school talks and
various market days, as well as mass mailing to the surrounding townships. Further fencing
will be undertaken to assist in minimising human and vehicular access and subsequent
disturbance to nesting sites. Removal of Bitou bush from sites, with vegetation
manipulation as required, will improve habitat for the three endangered shorebird species.
22,127
2008-09
CC085052
NSW
Southern Rivers
Catchment
Management
Authority
Long-nosed potoroo and
threatened shorebird recovery
at Tanja (Please read 'Potoroo
and shorebirds at
Tanja1.pdf'before this one)
This project will significantly augment the Threatened Shorebird Recovery Program in the
Wapengo area and in doing so expand and protect a population of the Nationally
Threatened Long-nosed Potoroo occupying adjacent sand forest and coastal heath habitats.
The project will communicate to National Resource Management agencies and landholders
'best practice' in fox control for the protection of ground dwelling native animals. The Longnosed Potoroo is endemic to the coastal vegetation of the south-east corner of Australia
and is preyed upon by the Red Fox. The latest Fox Threat Abatement Plan review on the
Shorebird program indicates that wider fox control is required. There are many examples
across the country of ongoing fox control efforts that have little or no benefit to
biodiversity. The project will define for the local community, local government and state
NRM agencies best practice fox control for the purposes terrestrial biodiversity protection.
25,127
59
Funding (GST
Excl)
Year
Grant #
State
Proponent
Title
Description
2008-09
CC085361
SA
Back Beach (Sa)
Pty Ltd Atf Back
Beach Property
Trust
Feral flora and fauna control at
Back Beach, Streaky Bay
The purpose of this project is the control of African Boxthorn infestations and feral foxes
and cats around Hawley Farm in the Back Beach area of Streaky Bay. The project will
increase the opportunity for native flora and fauna to recolonise this property and the
adjacent coastal Conservation lease area. It will combat the effects of habitat degradation
caused by Boxthorn infestation and feral species predation and competition, exacerbated by
the drought. The anticipated outcomes of this project include a contribution to existing feral
flora and fauna programs within the Cape Bauer and greater Eyre Peninsula region, such as
The Cape Bauer Group Project; and the Eyre Peninsula. Integrated Pest Management
Program increased habitat availability for native flora and fauna species through the
removal of large stands of African Boxthorn. Reduction in predation by foxes and cats on
native species of birds, kangaroos and wallabies and other small mammals, as well as
reduced predation on production lambs and reduction in food supply and habitat for
invasive species.
2008-09
CC083683
SA
Threat abatement for key
habitat of migratory and
threatened shorebirds in south
east of South Australia
This project will abate the threat of feral animals, particularly foxes and cats, to migratory
shorebirds and their nesting habitat through an intensive and collaborative management
program spanning the coastal reserves and adjoining agricultural land.
2008-09
CC082135
VIC
South East
Natural
Resources
Management
Board
Phillip Island
Nature Park
Board Of
Management Inc
Phillip Island fox eradication
project
This project will eradicate foxes from Phillip Island for the long term protection of native
species. Funding will assist in the application of baiting into targeted hot-spots and assist in
the application and assessment of a number of monitoring methods for Phillip Island's low
density fox population. At risk native species will be monitored to determine the success of
the program. The data collected during this project will be compared with data collated
from over twenty years of fox control and the last ten years of monitoring at risk native
species. The project outcomes include confirmation of a reduction in fox numbers and
monitoring the effect reduced fox numbers has on at risk native species.
60
Funding (GST
Excl)
20,205
151,341
29,250
Year
Grant #
State
Proponent
Title
Description
2008-09
CC081727
VIC
Harmers Haven
Residents &
Ratepayers
Group; The
Friends Of
Harmers Haven
Looking after our Hoodies and
waterways: community action
and education around weeds,
foxes, unleashed dogs, and
revegetation.
This project involves local communities adjacent to the Harmers Haven Coastal Reserve and
Bunurong Marine Park and Coastal Reserve combining to implement an action and
education program. We aim to improve water quality, undertake weed control and
revegetation works, track rationalisation, feral animal control, protect fauna, and enhance
awareness of responsible pet ownership. Water quality and biodiversity will be improved by
restoring three coastal waterways, all infested with invasive weed species. Part of the
project will form the second stage of works at Cape Paterson, Pea Creek and Cassia Street
Reserve, including weed eradication and revegetation of the upper end of the creek. Foxes
and unleashed dogs remain a major threat, and soft-jaw fox trapping will be introduced. The
project will develop strategies to increase compliance with Parks Victoria (2006)
Management Plan dog regulations. Outcomes will include community engagement and
education around weed identification, revegetation, responsible pet ownership, track
rationalisation and board walk construction.
49,500
2008-09
CC083476
VIC
South Gippsland
Landcare
Network
Supporting coastal pest animal
management along the Cape
Liptrap coast
Nationally threatened species such as the Southern Brown Bandicoot, migratory shorebirds
and the Orange-bellied parrot and many others are threatened via predation by the
European fox found in the Cape Liptrap Coastal Park and its hinterlands. This project will
focus on training, empowering and supporting private landholders to increase and improve
their fox management practices. This will align with a landscape-scale fox eradication
program initiated by the Friends of Venus Bay Peninsula and Parks Victoria. Venus Bay
residents and Parks Victoria have committed to improving fox management by initiating a
more intense fox baiting program. This commitment provides the strong basis to engage the
managers of the large properties comprising the remaining areas within the landscape in
order to improve their fox management activity. The project will encourage private
landholders to change or add to their fox management activity by the establishment of
permanent control points (comprising regular baiting, trapping or shooting) on their
properties.
45,455
61
Funding (GST
Excl)
Year
Grant #
State
Proponent
Title
Description
2008-09
CC083432
WA
Department of
Environment
and
Conservation
and The trustee
for The Gnaraloo
Station Trust
Fox control to support the
Gnaraloo Community monitoring
program of endangered and
vulnerable marine turtles
Ningaloo Marine Park in Western Australia has been identified as having significant beaches
for turtle nesting, in particular the Loggerhead, Green, and Hawksbill Turtles. Fox predation
of turtle nests has been identified as a key threat to the recovery of turtle populations and
research has found that on some beaches foxes destroy as many as 70% of turtle nests.
Studies on the population dynamics of marine turtles indicate that continued losses of more
than a few percent above the natural mortality level are likely to lead to further significant
population declines. Five per cent has been identified as a sustainable fox predation level
for the Ningaloo Region. The project will conduct 1080 fox baitings in these newly identified
areas in support of the Gnaraloo Marine Turtle Survival Program. The anticipated outcomes
of this project include the protection of turtle nesting sites, community engagement in
turtle conservation management, and increased public awareness of turtle conservation
issues.
117,555
2009-10
.
SA
Middleback
Alliance
(Ecological
Horizons Pty.
Ltd.)
The Middleback Alliance: A
landholder partnership achieving
landscape scale restoration in
remote South Australia
The Middleback Alliance is a joint initiative between local landholders, the S.A. Dept for
Environment and Heritage and OneSteel Mining Operation. The aim of the program is to
jointly manage more than 100,000 hectares of semi-arid rangelands in remote Australia to
improve land management, reduce threatening processes such as goats, foxes and rabbits
and enhance threatened species habitat. Activities include community engagement and
education, regional threat abatement programs coordinated by local landholders, fire
management, waterhole management, and surveys and monitoring for threatened species
(including nationally threatened chalky wattle (Acacia cretacea), Malleefowl and Sandhill
Dunnart)
247,500
2009-10
CAG09-00053
VIC
FARM TREES
AND LAND
ASSOCIATION
INC UPPER
OVENS VALLEY
LANDCARE
GROUP
Improving River Health and
Water Quality (Upper Ovens
River, NE Victoria) - Stage 4
2009-10
CAG09-00324
WA
Lake
McDermott
Catchment
Group (INC)
1080 Fox and Rabbit Baiting in
the Shire of Mt Marshall
The iconic Upper Ovens River and its riparian zone has been degraded by widespread
infestations of willow (seeding Grey Sallow and vegetative Crack Willow) and blackberry
which are all listed as Weeds of National Significance. The degradation is occurring through
collapsing trees that are causing issues including bank erosion; seasonal leaf-drop is causing
anoxic conditions for macroinvertebrates and fish; and extensive brambles are providing
harbour for rabbits and foxes. This community-based project aims to clear these noxious
weeds and revegetate with indigenous species, with steering advice from a number of
public land management agencies and specialists. To date, 12 km of the river have been
rehabilitated.
The funding will be used to purchase 1080 baits to bait for foxes and rabbits within the Shire
of Mt Marshall. Local landholders will be able to express their interest to gain baits through
this project. Rabbit and fox populations are an ongoing environmental problem for the Shire
of Mt Marshall and the region as they are causing detrimental impacts to the local sheep
and cropping industries as well as local flora and fauna. Reducing the populations and
impact of the fox and rabbit populations will help of the populations of vulnerable species
recovery including local populations of Western Spiny-tailed Skinks and Malleefowls.
62
Funding (GST
Excl)
19,940
9,091
Year
Grant #
State
Proponent
Title
Description
2009-10
CAG09-00504
NSW
Friends of The
Brush-Tailed
Rock-Wallaby
Incorporated
Census and control of pest
animals for the protection of
Brush-tailed Rock-wallabies
2009-10
CAG09-00226
VIC
Mornington
Peninsula And
Western Port
Biosphere
Reserve
Foundation Ltd
Community contribution to
Western Port Ramsar and
endangered icon Southern
Brown Bandicoot
2009-10
CAG09-00658
WA
Blackwood Basin
Group
Incorporated
Controlling feral vertebrates to
protect biodiversity assets in the
Blackwood Basin.
2009-10
CAG09-00335
NSW
Mates of the
Manning (MoM)
Endangered Shorebird Program
2010-11
OC11-01168
SA
The Barossa
Council
Managing Habitat at Landscape
Scale in the Upper Torrens
Catchment
A questionnaire on the presence, abundance, and frequency of a number of key feral animal
species observed on private properties will be developed and mailed out to local
landholders in the vicinity of brush-tailed rock-wallaby colonies in the Kangaroo Valley,
Illaroo and Bugong areas. Pest species of particular interest are foxes, wild dogs, goats and
deer. Ten remote cameras will be loaned out to interested landholders to assist them with
pest animal identification. Following the identification of pest species locations a contract
trapper/shooter will be employed to control the threatening pest species on private
properties in the vicinity of local Brush-tailed rock wallaby colonies.
This project focuses on the habitat of the Southern Brown Bandicoot in and around the
Western Port Ramsar site and adjacent Nature Conservation Reserves in its effort to raise
community awareness about managing pest species and other threats to critical habitats.
Information booklets and educational material will be produced for website publication and
face to face educational activities, while the project will engage the local community in a
series of workshops and educational activities to improve local understanding of issues such
as native vegetation management and the risks and benefits of fox and rabbit control
methods for the broader landscape.
This project will link with established programs to reduce rabbit and fox numbers. Land
managers within a 30 kilometre buffer area will be engaged in protecting high biodiversity
assets and offered an incentive to help cover the financial costs of baiting, fumigating and
ripping burrows. Media publicity to raise awareness of the damage caused by rabbits,
knowledge of control options and project outcomes will be widespread. Awareness and
capacity of land managers to undertake meaningful pest control will increase through
training and technical advice in control methods.
This project aims to minimise disturbance to shorebird nesting sites, extending the current
management of endangered shorebirds in the Manning River estuaries, Manning Entrance
State Park. The project aims to increase pest management activities, particularly fox control,
on both the surrounding private properties and public lands, improve and create suitable
habitat for the endangered shorebirds and further enhance public knowledge of the threats
to the endangered shorebirds in the Manning estuaries.
This project will help landholders near the Cromer Conservation Park develop a
conservation cluster. Private, corporate and Government landholders will be encouraged to
work with the Upper River Torrens Landcare Group to ensure that the region's biodiversity
and landscape is protected from threats such as foxes and overgrazing by kangaroos and
domestic stock.
63
Funding (GST
Excl)
9,000
19,836
19,636
20,000
75,000
Year
Grant #
State
Proponent
Title
Description
2010-11
CAG10‐122
NSW
Mates of the
Manning
Endangered shorebird Program
in the Manning River estuaries
This project will further previous successes in the increased breeding of the endangered
shorebirds in the Manning river estuaries. The project will improve on and create additional
suitable breeding habitats for endangered species. This will be achieved through, increased
pest (fox) management on local and surrounding land and the control of invasive vegetation
such as bitou bush. Community educational activities such as workshops and field days will
be undertaken to enhance public knowledge and awareness of the threats to endangered
species.
20,000
2010-11
CAG10‐1176
NSW
Condobolin and
District Landcare
The project will control infestations of African boxthorn that threaten riparian zones and
biodiversity in the riverine waterways of the Condobolin area. Project activities include
mapping infestations, developing treatment schedules, weed control, fox baiting,
monitoring and assessment. A field day will demonstrate coordinated approaches to
improving biodiversity. Project outcomes include establishment of native grasses and
shrubs, improved resilience of native habitat, removal of feral animal habitat, and
productivity improvements.
20,000
2010-11
CAG10-439
NSW
TM Vella and RJ
Waters
Eradication of feral animals in
the NSW highlands and national
parks
The project aims to reduce feral pests in the New South Wales highlands and national parks
such as Abercombie River National Park and Reserve. There are 56 introduced invasive
vertebrate animals such as foxes, pigs and dogs damaging the environment, the economy
and Indigenous culture in these areas, costing more than $720 million annually. The project
will control and eradicate pest species using Indigenous knowledge of tracking and the land
as well as mainstream techniques such as trained tracking dogs, trapping and some baiting.
The project will record the impact of System the pests on the environment, Aboriginal sites
and property to demonstrate the effects of pest populations breeding in nature reserves
and parks on adjoining properties.
20,000
2010-11
CAG10-1252
NSW
Southern Rivers
Wapengo
Watershed
Community
Group
Enhancing coastal ecosystems
through protection of the
threatened Potoroo
This project will enhance the ecosystem of the New South Wales far south coast to assist in
the protection work of the survival of the long-nosed potoroo - a small marsupial listed as
both a state and nationally threatened species. Habitat rehabilitation is essential due to the
fungal foraging role of the potoroo. Predator control, fauna monitoring and habitat
management will be undertaken by landholders coupled with training and skill development
to expand conservation efforts. A workshop for wild dog and fox baiting including bait
handling will be held with the help of local experts along with training for potoroo and
predator population monitoring, habitat management, Indigenous culture connection and
heritage significance. The project will increase the number of community members
undertaking potoroo conservation work, and further develop their understanding and
awareness of this work.
18,420
64
Funding (GST
Excl)
Year
Grant #
State
Proponent
Title
Description
2010-11
CAG10-757
QLD
Coolum District
Coastcare Group
Turtles in trouble: Monitoring
and working to protect nesting
female turtles and turtle nests in
the Coolum district
Nesting female turtles and turtle nests in the Coolum District of the Sunshine Coast from
Mooloolah River to Sunshine Beach are under serious threat from foxes, dogs, human
activities, artificial lighting, boat strike, and debris. The Coolum District Coast Care Group
will undertake an extensive turtle protection project that will include locating, monitoring
and protecting nests, turtle tagging and data collection, reducing predators such as foxes,
and increasing community involvement in turtle conservation. In addition, the group will
undertake rehabilitation of coastal dune habitats to ensure long term nesting site
availability. An officer will be appointed to manage activities, and volunteers dealing directly
with turtles will be accredited in accordance with legal requirements.
18,410
2010-11
AG10-971
QLD
Lower Nebine
best practice
group
Exploring and trialling options
for pest management of wild
dogs, foxes, cats and pigs in the
Nebine catchment.
This project will host a workshop comprising land managers, regional partners (SW National
Resource, Paroo Shire Council and Agforce), state agencies, regional partners (SW Natural
Resource Management, Paroo Shire Council and Agforce), state agencies and local industry
to explore best practice management options for the control of feral pest species within the
Nebine region. Targeted species include wild dogs, cats, pigs and foxes which disturb
sensitive wetlands and prey on a myriad of native species. The feral species also impact
grazing businesses through predation on domesticated animals. Training is a key
component of the project with training of motivated local operators in control operations
thereby ensuring project sustainability. Workshop topics will include baiting, trapping,
repelling of feral species and use of guardian species such as donkeys, alpacas and
maremma dogs. Current legislative responsibilities and issues will be explored. After
gathering best practice methodologies the group will establish networks of control teams
and implement actions through on ground works across their properties. Commercial
impacts caused by the feral pest species will also be documented using a "before and after"
the project survey. The group will establish simple monitoring and evaluation systems to
record numbers. Distribution of each pest species controlled and a biodiversity audit will be
conducted to show the results of the project.
19,900
65
Funding (GST
Excl)
Year
Grant #
State
Proponent
Title
Description
2010-11
CAG10‐1371
QLD
Murweh Shire
South West
Feral Animal
Control
Syndicate
Feral animal management in the
Murweh Shire South West
syndicate
Feral species, including dogs, cats, pigs and foxes, disturb sensitive wetlands, and prey on
both native species and domesticated animals. A workshop hosted in conjunction with peer
groups, regional partners, state agencies and industry specialists will explore best practice
management options for feral species management. Control options will be discussed,
including baiting, trapping, repelling and use of guardian species such as donkeys, alpacas
and Maremma dogs. Legislative issues will be explored. Networks of control teams will be
established to reduce feral populations and allow for regeneration of native animals and
plants. The impact of feral species on commercial activity will be documented by a survey
conducted before and after project activity. Numbers and distribution of each pest species
will be documented, and a biodiversity audit will show project results. Training of local
operators in control options will ensure project sustainability. The project will link to other
projects in the region investigating the impact of feral species on native wildlife.
20,000
2010-11
CAG10-62
SA
Loxton to
Bookpurnong
Local Action
Planning
Committee
Reduce the impact of invasive
species to aid protection of
native wildlife in the Pyap to
Kingston on Murray land and
water management
This project will reduce fox numbers in the Pyap to Kingston area on the Murray river. Fox
baits will be provided to participating landholders who will monitor and replace baits over a
period of weeks. At the completion of the baiting period landholders will remove remaining
baits. The program is scheduled to coordinate with an existing fox baiting program in the
nearby Bakara Group Conservation Park. Reducing fox numbers will have positive impact on
native fauna, and the program will also increase participation rates of local regional
communities in natural resource management and environmental protection.
14,400
2010-11
CAG10‐01397
VIC
Corio Shire
Landcare
Hovells Creek Restoration
project‐ an integrated approach
to rabbit and weed control to
enable the restoration of native
habitat
This project will restore an eight kilometre stretch of the Hovell Creek riparian zone,
increase biodiversity and create a habitat corridor linking to the You Yangs Regional Park.
This will be achieved through an integrated approach to the elimination of invasive animal
species such as rabbits and foxes, and the removal of noxious weeds, including weeds of
national significance such as boneseed, bridal creeper and serrated tussock. These
non‐native species erode river banks (causing downstream siltation and water quality
problems) and destroy the native habitat of indigenous wildlife. A qualified contractor will
be engaged to undertake a program of warren fumigation and poison baiting. Volunteers
and contractors will remove invasive vegetation or treat it with herbicides. After the control
programs are complete, native grasses and trees will be planted to restore the native
habitat. Land managers and the Corio Landcare Group will maintain the area.
18,200
66
Funding (GST
Excl)
Year
Grant #
State
Proponent
Title
Description
2010-11
CAG10-01144
VIC
Panyyabyr
Landcare Group
Grampians to the Plains
Grasslands - conservation,
collaboration, buffering public
and private grassy woodland
fauna from fox predation
This project will implement a best practice pulse fox-baiting program to protect threatened
species of the volcanic plains grassy communities in a target area of grassy woodland and
wetland habitat adjoining the Grampians National Park. The project will be timed to
coincide with the Grampians Ark fox baiting project. Following the model established by
Grampians Ark and with support from the group the project will map significant habitat
areas on public and private land and fox hides. Monitoring and research will be undertaken
using digital cameras. Two community engagement and biodiversity education field days
will be held for public and private landholders to raise the profile of the area’s ecology and
demonstrate effective pulse baiting techniques. Extensive mapping of the area and
establishing permanent bait stations will make it easier to continue baiting in the future.
Landholders will be encouraged to develop their own monitoring regimes.
20,000
2010-11
CAG10-00861
VIC
BlampiedKooroocheang
Land Care Group
South Central Cairn Curran
Water Conservation Project
(STAGE TWO)
The project involves a series of educational and community awareness activities to address
the threat posed to the local seed growing industry by invasive weeds, which could pollute
crops and destroy income. The project will address the need to control invasive pests and
noxious weeds in the area. Pest animals such as foxes and rabbits find harbour in these
weeds. A demonstration day will show correct procedures in ripping warrens, spraying
weeds, correct handling of chemicals and protection of operators. Areas to be treated will
be mapped. Regenerated areas will be fenced and a co-ordinated fox and rabbit eradication
program will be undertaken. Farm walks will be organised on selected properties to
demonstrate the benefits of efficient programs. Community groups will meet to publish
newsletters and press releases and there is an ongoing commitment from participants to
continue the program.
20,000
2010-11
CAG10-00252
VIC
Campaspe River
and Land
Management
Group Friends of
the Campaspe
River
Hand clearing of Poplar Suckers
from river bed and native plant
revegetation of steep river bank
- Campaspe River Kyneton Apex Weir to Racecourse
Building on a seven year community project that has seen four kilometres of the Campaspe
River returned to environmental health from previous use as a town rubbish tip, the Friends
of the Campaspe River will clear and revegetate upstream areas of the river bank where
suckers of elm, poplar and willow choke the river banks. This weed infested environment
provides a refuge for feral animals such as foxes and rabbits. Working closely with the North
Central Catchment Management Authority and the Macedon Ranges Shire Council, a
qualified contractor will spray weeds, volunteers will cut down dead weeds for mulch, and
suitable native species will be planted out on the cleared riverbanks. It is anticipated that
the project will greatly enhance river flows and lead to the return of native flora and fauna
to the area including black swans and platypus.
19,500
67
Funding (GST
Excl)
Year
Grant #
State
Proponent
Title
Description
2010-11
CAG10-01077
VIC
North East Wild
Dog
Management
Group
Wild dog and fox control using
best practice baiting techniques
Wild dogs and foxes are a significant threat to native wildlife within the Gippsland region.
These pest populations have been targeted on public lands by the Department of Primary
Industry, Department of Sustainability and Environment and Parks Victoria. However, there
is a need to control these animals on private lands. The North East Wild Dog Management
Group will build community capacity to play a role in cross tenure pest predator control by
offering 50 free places on 1080 agricultural chemical users permit endorsement courses.
The courses will be made available in local areas of significant biodiversity values and those
with established conservation programs such as the North East biolinks incentive program.
As an inducement for landowners to synchronise their baiting programs with public
programs, a one-off supply of free 1080 baits will be made available to participants. This
project will achieve significant biodiversity benefits through reduction in native species
predation by wild dogs and foxes.
20,000
2010-11
CAG10-01401
VIC
Wandiligong
Preservation
Society
Incorporated
The Wandiligong Community's
Determination to Restore
Biodiversity to Significantly
Degraded Public Land
This project aims to enhance biodiversity and improve degraded public land, accessibility,
public education and community safety in Wandiligong. Invasive plants within the project
area include blackberries, pussy willows, hawthorn, caper spurge, St Johns wort, easter oil
plants and robinia. These have created an impenetrable barrier for humans and also provide
safety and habitat for feral animals such as cats, foxes and rabbits. The area presently is a
bushfire hazard. These weeds will be removed by excavator, chainsaw, grubbing and
poisoning. Once weeds have been removed planting of species indigenous to the area will
occur which will create wildlife corridors and significantly enhance biodiversity. Fauna
control will largely be based on habitat removal, involving the destruction of rabbit warrens
and fox lairs. Vegetative cover will also be removed. Erosion restoration will be conducted
by a contractor, which will include earth works for bank stabilisation. Community members
will assist with voluntary labour.
13,075
2010-11
CAG10-01358
WA
Shire of West
Arthur
Protection and enhancement of
the Dardadine Block for
the preservation of rare native
flora and fauna
The Dardadine Block in the Shire of West Arthur is being encroached upon by winter and
summer weeds, preventing endemic species including rare and endangered flora from
regenerating. In addition, predation and environmental damage are being caused by feral
animals such as foxes and rabbits. The Land for Wildlife Site 8 group will implement an
environmental management plan in conjunction with expert advisors, community
volunteers and local schools to control weeds, encourage regeneration of native species,
control feral animals, survey nesting sites and collect seeds for propagation and replanting.
The outcome from these activities will enable native vegetation to outcompete and
suppress weeds, and will reduce erosion. Local students and community volunteers will
learn skills in seed collection and propagation as well as constructing native fauna nesting
sites. Ongoing maintenance of the area will be continued by landholders and community
volunteers.
10,699
68
Funding (GST
Excl)
Year
Grant #
State
Proponent
Title
Description
2011-12
OC12-00922
NSW
MANNING
ENTRANCE
STATE PARK
TRUST
On-ground works to manage
ecological values of Manning
Entrance State Park - NSW
This project will consolidate management of the endangered ecological community littoral
rainforest and coastal vine thickets and 'buffer' high conservation value ecosystems in the
Manning Entrance State Park NSW. Agencies, volunteers and Indigenous people will partner
to control Weeds of National Significance in 50ha of littoral rainforest along 10km of
coastline, reduce the impact of foxes to protect threatened fauna, and enhance skills and
knowledge in weed and pest management.
335,000
2011-12
OC12-00403
NSW
Pest Animal Management and
Landholder Engagement in New
England NSW
OC12-00496
NSW
This project will reduce the threats to endangered ecological communities and threatened
species in the NSW New England region. The project will raise awareness about the impact
of pest animals such as pigs, foxes, wild dogs and rabbits on natural assets and agricultural
production. Landholders will be engaged in cooperative programs to control and manage
these pests.
This collaborative project will implement a strategic predator control program over two
years to reduce key threats to endangered fauna in the Shoalhaven. A wide range of both
conventional and new control techniques will be deployed in 12 zones to reduce impact on
seven EPBC listed, two NSW listed endangered and 37 migratory EPBC species. It builds
upon the existing Fox TAP program. The project aims to mobilise additional landowners and
volunteers, reduce threats through community education and map key predator habitat.
173,000
2011-12
NEW ENGLAND
NORTH WEST
LANDCARE
NETWORK
CHAIRS INC
SHOALHAVEN
CITY COUNCIL
2011-12
OC12-00255
SA
Landscape-scale aerial fox
control for the nationally
threatened Andu wallaby
OC12-00244
SA
This project expands the successful Bounceback Program for the threatened Andu (yellowfooted rock-wallaby), to include privately managed reserves, Aboriginal land and key
pastoral properties. It addresses a gap by further developing partnerships, engaging
landholders across the region and aerial baiting over a large proportion of known wallaby
colonies in the semi-arid rangeland environments of SA.
Perimeter fencing around a 1000ha property will be upgraded to be feral-proof, allowing for
staged eradication to remove rabbits, cats and foxes. This will allow regeneration in
remnant vegetation, including protected peppermint box and lomandra grasslands and
threatened species including the monarto mintbush.
195,000
2011-12
DEPARTMENT
FOR
ENVIRONMENT
AND NATURAL
RESOURCES
ROYAL
ZOOLOGICAL
SOCIETY OF
SOUTH
AUSTRALIA INC
2011-12
OC12-00952
BELLARINE
LANDCARE
GROUP INC
Bellarine Ark 2 - Predator
Control for Bellarine Peninsula
Ramsar Sites
Priority locations within Ramsar sites on the Bellarine Peninsula will be protected from
predators notably foxes. A range of control approaches will be used to suit different
landscapes, monitoring and reporting of predator activity will be undertaken, and
community and organisational capacity and engagement will be increased.
240,000
2011-12
OC12-00448
PROJECT
PLATYPUS
ASSOCIATION
INC
Controlling fox predation on
Southern Brown Bandicoot
populations Upper Wimmera
The project will focus on reducing the impact of fox predation on southern brown bandicoot
populations in the Upper Wimmera as part of a local southern brown bandicoot recovery
plan. A comprehensive and ongoing fox control program, demonstration sites for bandicootfriendly rabbit and weed control, and trials of complementary revegetation methods will be
established.
VIC
Predator Control for Shoalhaven
Endangered Species
Increasing biodiversity and
habitat health through
vertebrate pest removal
69
Funding (GST
Excl)
111,801
179,400
43,000
Year
Grant #
State
Proponent
Title
Description
2011-12
.
NT
Territory NRM
.
Territory NRM Territory NRM will work with Indigenous and community groups and all four
of the key pastoral landcare associations across the region covering all of the Northern
6,636,600
2011-12
CAG-728888856
VIC
Australian
Freshwater
Turtle
Conservation &
Research
Association
Incorporated
Kerang and Gunbower Wetlands
Turtle Nest Protection and Field
Survey 2011/12
It is estimated that over 90% of turtle nests are predated, predominantly by foxes. Locate
areas where turtles nest within the Kerang and Gunbower Wetlands during the nesting
season. Protect any nests that have not been predated to prevent predation. Collect data
from predated nests i.e. number of eggs on ground, photograph site, GPS location, species
etc. Collect additional data from nesting turtles i.e. time, date of nesting, duration of
nesting, place temperature recording device in nest. Record sighting of any turtle. Discuss
with landholders management issues that relate to turtle nests, i.e. ploughing, seeding,
weed control, fox control etc. and assist with the protection of these nesting sites.
5,350
2011-12
CAG-727870825
VIC
Ballarat
Environment
Network Inc
BEN Biodiversity Reserves
Enhancement - Stage 2
Most of the Network's 50 biodiversity reserves are adversely impacted by woody and
herbaceous weeds, rabbits and foxes. Over the past eight years, utilising a range of funding,
these impacts have been greatly reduced. Continuation of control measures is required but
attention can now be given to greater involvement of volunteers, especially local residents,
in managing and caring for the reserves.
20,000
2011-12
CAG-722648547
VIC
Bunyip Landcare
Group Inc.
Integrated pest control to build
resilient Southern Brown
Bandicoot habitat
The Bunyip River is a major waterway leading to the RAMSAR listed Western Port. This
project aims to begin an on-going invasive pest plant and animal program to protect native
wildlife and plant communities around the Bunyip River catchment. A community
monitoring group began recently to map the southern brown bandicoot (SBB) - a nationally
threatened species, found in this catchment. SBB are threatened by the removal of habitat
but also by predators such as foxes, cats and wild dogs. This project would see an integrated
approach to pest plant and animal control by encouraging the community to be involved in
the monitoring group and using experts, volunteer labour and contractor labour.
20,000
2011-12
CAG-727922845
QLD
Lake Macdonald
Catchment Care
group
Feral Fauna Forum - managing
invasive pests
In south east Queensland and the Wide Bay region, feral animals including foxes, cats, pigs
and deer are causing widespread destruction to farming areas and loss of biodiversity. Deer
out-compete native wildlife. Foxes, cats and wild dogs prey on domestic and native animals
as well as turtle eggs. Feral pigs are one of the most destructive of all, causing widespread
damage to crops and vegetation, as well as spreading diseases and parasites. Indian mynas
out-compete many hollow dependant native fauna. This project aims to improve awareness
and facilitate coordinated actions to address these issues with land managers throughout
the region
8,800
70
Funding (GST
Excl)
Year
Grant #
State
Proponent
Title
Description
2011-12
CAG-727924846
VIC
Mornington
Peninsula &
Western Port
Biosphere
Reserve
Foundation Ltd
Reconnecting landscape in
Western Port Biosphere Reserve
for endangered wildlife
The southern brown bandicoot is a nationally threatened Environment Protection and
Biodiversity Conservation listed species. It and other species protected under RAMSAR and
international treaties are endangered due to urban growth, habitat loss and fragmentation
and climate change in our Biosphere. Implementing on ground action for the eight
management plans and an imminent Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation
Strategic Assessment is an issue. We initiated fox control, now maintained by
Commonwealth and state projects; ensuring all-stakeholder ownership is needed. We
contribute professional evaluation using remote cameras. It is imperative the community
contributes an independent voice. The community asked the Biosphere to create a Regional
Recovery Group with all stakeholders, now to being implemented.
20,000
2011-12
CAG-716327165
QLD
Pullen Pullen
Catchment
Group Inc
Protecting and Restoring
Marsupial Habitat in Pullen
Pullen Catchment
This project aims to protect and restore critical remnant habitat of five iconic marsupial
species known to inhabit key bushland areas in the Pullen Pullen Catchment - the sugar
glider, squirrel glider, yellow-footed antechinus, brush-tailed phascogale and long-nosed
bandicoot. Habitat loss and predation by domestic and feral animals (cats and foxes) are the
key threats to their survival. Weed removal and revegetation works at two strategic project
sites, engaging community, corporate volunteer groups and contractors, will enhance
critical habitat areas. Four community tree planting and wildlife spotlighting events and a
media education strategy will be delivered to engage and educate the community. 400-450
people are expected to participate.
13,820
2011-12
CAG-718206244
VIC
Trustee for the
Cape Otway
Centre for
Conservation
Ecology
Reducing impacts of pest species
on endangered Tiger Quolls
across the landscape
This project will help to mitigate a key threat to the persistence of the endangered tiger
quoll in the Otway Ranges, one of its last stronghold areas in Victoria. Utilising the tiger
quoll as a flagship species, the project will undertake control efforts on vertebrate pest
species (foxes and feral cats) which compete with tiger quolls. These activities will in turn
benefit broader biodiversity, particularly small mammals. Edge habitats on private land are
likely to harbour source populations of these introduced predators which then impact
protected areas. By undertaking control efforts on private land the project activities will
complement efforts by Parks Victoria and Department of Sustainability and Environment
and significantly contribute to landscape conservation.
19,980
71
Funding (GST
Excl)
Year
Grant #
State
Proponent
Title
Description
2011-12
CAG-719441294
VIC
Upper Ovens
Valley Landcare
Group
Improving River Health and
Water Quality Stage 5
The iconic Upper Ovens River and its riparian zone has been degraded by widespread
infestations of willow (seeding pussy willow and vegetative crack willow) and blackberry - all
Weeds of National Significance (WONS). Collapsing trees are causing braiding of the river
stem and bank erosion, seasonal leaf-drop is causing anoxic conditions for macro
invertebrates and fish, and extensive brambles are providing harbour for rabbits and foxes.
A six-year multi-staged community-based project to clear WONS and re-vegetate with
indigenous species is being led by our Landcare Group, with steering advice from public land
management agencies and specialists. This funding would support joining two previous
project areas creating over 20km of repaired riparian land.
19,990
2011-12
CAG-718479251
WA
Wagin
Woodanilling
Landcare Zone
Inc
A Phascogale Friendly
Community - Nest boxes and
Predator control program
Threats facing the endangered species red tailed phascogale (RTP) include a lack of natural
hollows in existing habitat and an ever increasing threat of two invasive species, the red fox
and feral cat. The community wishes to address these threats to support past monitoring
and on ground works under the Recovery Action Plan. Wagin Woodanilling Landcare Zone
(WWLZ) will engage with and enable community and private landholders through
coordination of four main activities; community nest box building workshops, fox baiting
and cat trapping program, community nest box survey, camera trapping and monitoring.
Wildlife Research and Management (WRM) will be contracted to create a thorough
monitoring system, placement of nest boxes with camera set up.
20,000
2011-12
CAG-729658965
WA
Wildlife
Australia
Incorporated
Jarrah Forest in Decline:
Controlling Ferals and Restoring
Damaged Jarrah Forest
Wildlife Australia Incorporated (WAI) operates from the Kaarakin Black Cockatoo
Rehabilitation Centre (BCRC) and is situated on the outskirts of Perth. It is surrounded by
the Jarrah/Marri/Wandoo forest of Banywola Regional Park (BRP). The 18 hectare site is
heavily impacted upon by feral foxes and cats that kill endemic fauna on site and in the
surrounding BRP. WAI has an ongoing revegetation program to rehabilitate a severely
degraded former wildlife park and eradicate feral animals. Both programs aim to reduce the
impact of invasive flora and fauna species and promote and protect native fauna and flora
in this biologically sensitive important area. This is in line with Caring for Our Country's five
year plan in biodiversity and conservation.
19,810
2012-13
OC13-00543
NSW
MURRAY
CATCHMENT
MANAGEMENT
AUTHORITY
Increase Indigenous
participation in NRM for the
proposed Werai IPA.
This project will support traditional owners, the Indigenous community, and NSW and
Australian Governments to declare Werai Forest an Indigenous Protected Area. The project
will further develop Indigenous capacity to undertake natural resource management in the
Werai Ramsar area, support the use of traditional ecological knowledge, develop capacity to
manage the forest, foster partnerships with stakeholders, develop onground programs such
as cross tenure fox control, and build community support for Indigenous Protected Areas.
150,000
72
Funding (GST
Excl)
Year
Grant #
State
Proponent
Title
Description
2012-13
OC13-00096
SA
ALINYTJARA
WILURARA
NATURAL
RESOURCE
MANAGEMENT
BOARD
Innovative management of
invasive species in the Maralinga
Tjarutja Lands,
The Alinytjara Wilurara Natural Resource Management Board will partner with Indigenous
landowners to assist in the management of invasive species across the remote Maralinga
Tjarutja Lands. By using animal track data and an invasive species management tool, the
project will manage cats and foxes around threatened species sites.
139,192
2012-13
OC13-00050
SA
COORONG
DISTRICT
COUNCIL
Enhancing priority remnant
native vegetation in the Upper
South East
This project will increase native habitat and reduce the impact of vertebrate pests and
Weeds of National Significance on endangered species within the Coorong and Tatiara
Districts of South Australia. This will be achieved through fencing to protect listed
communities and endangered species, controlling weeds, foxes and rabbits, providing
technical support for onground works, and enhancing partnerships between stakeholders.
178,000
2012-13
OC13-00339
SA
ECOLOGICAL
HORIZONS PTY
LTD
Threat abatement for nationally
threatened Middleback mallee
species
Feral foxes, cats and goats present a serious threat to nationally threatened Malleefowl,
Sandhill Dunnart, Chalky Wattle and Yellow Swainsona Pea, in the Middleback Alliance
region of Eyre Peninsula. This project will refine optimal techniques for controlling pests
over 500,000 ha of private, public and Natural Reserve System land, through the use of
radiotracking and automated poisoning devices.
2012-13
OC13-00270
SA
ROYAL
ZOOLOGICAL
SOCIETY OF
SOUTH
AUSTRALIA
Reducing the impact of
vertebrate pests on a 1000 ha
property at Monarto
This project will reduce the impact of rabbits, cats and foxes on 1000 ha of property in
Monarto. The outcomes of this work will be increased regeneration of habitat, revegetation
and protection of EPBC Act 1999 listed plant communities and species, and building skills
and knowledge within the local community.
169,920
2012-13
OC13-00100
WA
DEPARTMENT
OF
ENVIRONMENT
AND
CONSERVATION
Saving EPBC listed species by
controlling introduced predators
This project will continue aerial baiting trials to reduce predation by feral cats and foxes in
key conservation reserves on the south coast of WA. This will reduce critical threats to over
300,000 ha of key habitat for EPBC listed fauna species, including the critically endangered
Gilbert's Potoroo and the endangered Western Ground Parrot.
92,000
2012-13
CAG10345161046
NSW
MCGLASHAN &
CRISP PTY
LIMITED
Endangered Shorebird Program
This project will minimise disturbance to shorebird nesting sites extending the current
management of endangered shorebirds in the Manning River estuaries (Manning Entrance
State Park). The project will increase pest management activities particularly fox control on
both the surrounding private properties and public lands, improve and create suitable
habitat for the endangered shorebirds, and further enhance public knowledge of the threats
to the endangered shorebirds.
19,990
73
Funding (GST
Excl)
78,000
Year
Grant #
State
Proponent
Title
Description
2012-13
CAG10713431153
NSW
TWEED
LANDCARE INC
Protection and restoration of
significant coastal habitat at
Cabarita Beach, NSW
The project involves bush regeneration and community engagement to protect and restore
important coastal habitats at Cabarita Beach on the Tweed Coast of NSW. The site provides
important habitat for the threatened Glossy Black Cockatoo, Common Blossom Bat, Greyheaded Flying Fox and contains Coastal Cypress Pine Endangered Ecological Community,
regenerating littoral rainforest plants and the threatened pink nodding orchid. Invasive
plant species, including Weeds of National Significance, threaten the ongoing viability of
threatened flora and fauna habitat. High levels of human visitation also have the potential
to degrade the site. The project will manage and reduce the impact of these threats,
through bush regeneration and increasing community awareness and knowledge.
8,800
2012-13
CAG10786331316
NSW
CENTRAL WEST
LIVESTOCK
HEALTH AND
PEST
AUTHORITY
Goonoo Fox Control Program, a
fox control project to protect
Malleefowls
This project will minimise fox predation on Malleefowl to maintain its presence in the area
centring on the Goonoo Conservation area and surrounding private land north east of
Dubbo NSW. The program has been run for the last 20 years, and involves up to 200 local
farmers and three NSW government agencies coordinating fox control activities across
200,000 ha to protect Malleefowl from fox predation. Monitoring has shown that the
program has been successful in keeping the fox population continuously around 80-85%
lower than non baiting areas. This project will provide fox baits to private landholders.
10,000
2012-13
CAG10875201712
NSW
CONDOBOLIN
AND DISTRICT
LANDCARE
MANAGEMENT
COMMITTEE
Weed and Pest management
stage 2
Local Landcare have identified the African Boxthorn as a major priority in environmental
weed and pest control along our sensitive riverine waterways. It is a problem because it
severely restricts the growth of native vegetation, effects water quality reduces the
resilience of native fauna and provides harbour for the feral fox, cat and wild pig. This
project will treat 1200 ha of African Boxthorn as a second stage of a larger project.
Coordinating on this issue has led to a cohesive motivated Landcare group benefiting the
people farms and native biodiversity.
19,990
2012-13
CAG10792461355
VIC
WARRNAMBOOL
COASTCARE
LANDCARE
GROUP INC
Thunder Point Coastal Reserve
Restoration
This project will protect and enhance the natural values of the Thunder Point Coastal
Reserve and the Merri Marine Sanctuary by addressing the threat of invasive species (foxes
and environmental weeds), restoring indigenous vegetation, and engaging the community
in conservation science. The reserve adjoins the sanctuary and incorporates Middle Island.
The island is home to several seabird species, including a rare urban Little Penguin colony.
Due to its proximity to the mainland, the island’s seabirds have been decimated by fox
predation in recent years.
9,100
2012-13
CAG10796541402
VIC
VFF FARM TREE
AND LANDCARE
ASSOCIATION
INCORPORATED
Murrayville and Districts Fox and
Rabbit Baiting Program 2013
The group is located between the Murray Sunset National Park and Big Desert National Park
which is an important bio-link for the Mallee region. Large pest populations are affecting
local biodiversity through foraging and building warrens, and are known to be present in the
priority woodland areas. Implementing an integrated pest management plan is paramount
to optimising activities and value for money, and this project will be a valuable support to
primary control methods.
18,000
74
Funding (GST
Excl)
Year
Grant #
State
Proponent
Title
Description
Funding (GST
Excl)
2013-14
.
QLD
Inglewood and
Texas Landcare
Association Inc
Improved pig; dog and fox
management in the
Inglewood/Texas region
2013-14
.
QLD
Addressing Feral pig ,Wild dogs
& foxes in Beardmore Dam
catchment
.
50,000
2013-14
.
QLD
Beardmore Dam
Pest
Management
Group
(sponsored by
Dirranbandi
Landcare Group
Inc)
Dirranbandi
Landcare Group
Inc
Addressing Feral pig ,Wild dogs
& foxes in Lower Balonne &
Narran river catchment
.
50,000
2013-14
.
SA
Loxton to
Bookpurnong
Local Action
Planning
Committee Inc
Protecting River Corridor and
Mallee Farmlands From Foxes or
Rabbits
.
9,000
49,200
75
Appendix D: Biodiversity Fund projects with a fox component
Proponent
Title
Project description
Funding
Invasive Animals Ltd, NSW
Protecting the endangered malleefowl
from introduced predators near
Mount Hope
870,000
S.V Proust & P West, NSW
Restoration of littoral rainforest and
wading bird habitat
55,200
3 yrs
Southern Rivers Catchment
Management Authority, NSW
Potoroo & koala habitat restoration &
cultural connections
2,646,500
6 yrs
Earlside Pty Ltd, SA
Earlside remnant scrub protection and
corridor linkage project
82,800
5 yrs
Cardinia Environment
Coalition Inc. Vic.
Increasing the resilience of Bandicoot
Corner to pest species incursions
A recent aerial survey undertaken by the Lachlan CMA revealed a breeding population of endangered
Malleefowl on "Kilparney Station" near Mt. Hope NSW, and 40km south of Kilparney are the Nombinnie and
Round Hill Nature Reserves where Malleefowl also exist. Two of the largest threats to the survival of the
Malleefowl in the region are habitat fragmentation and predation by introduced predators. Although a large
area of intact remnant vegetation still connects the two areas, predators such as feral pigs and foxes are
abundant. The predator management programme championed by this project will protect existing
Malleefowl populations and permit their expansion via the creation of a predator free land bridge between
the two areas.
A habitat restoration project, targeting invasive weeds on an island in the Hastings River. Invasive weeds
threaten the littoral rainforest (critically endangered - EPBC Act) on the northern part of the island. Many of
these weeds, especially vines, threaten the survival of the tree layer and the rainforest itself and have the
potential to spread to nearby natural areas. The high tide roost for the wading birds that migrate from the
Northern Hemisphere in summer is threatened by the invasion of exotic weeds. Removal of these weeds
will maintain the health of the rainforest and suitability of the high tide roost. • Feral predator control, fox
and rat, will reduce the predation of JAMBA/CAMBA listed waders
Broad-scale private landholder engagement to strengthen other NSW government agency initiatives &
rebuild a resilient landscape with strong biodiversity & indigenous cultural outcomes. Focus to conserve,
connect & rehabilitate habitat of iconic threatened fauna species: koala & long-nosed potoroo. Priorities are
habitat conservation & rehabilitation in fertile riparian zones & enhanced connectivity to patches of
endemic vegetation (> 5ha). Successful pilot landholder engagement in broad scale coordinated fox control,
fauna monitoring & containment of the southward spread of lantana will be extended across this landscape.
Landholder engagement by local Aboriginal people around the cultural importance of these species will also
be extended.
We will protect our area of remnant native scrub (approx) 45 ha by controlling invasive species and
developing an ongoing plan that will address weed control, fire control and risk management. We will
contract assistance and advice where necessary to make sure that the work is completed in a competent
and timely manner. We will continue our program of fox control. We will continue to plant biodiverse
corridors of local native species using locally sourced seeds to link existing corridors and areas of established
scrub on our private land and nearby reserves.
Bandicoot Corner is a small reserve that has been established for the preservation of the Southern Brown
Bandicoot, (Isodon obesulus obesulus). It is a relatively intact area of remnant vegetation with significant
biodiversity within a highly modified rural landscape. Although the reserve is protected by predator fence;
incursions by invasive species such as Red Fox, feral Cat, and European Rabbit still occur. Foxes and feral
Cats prey on Southern Brown Bandicoots; Rabbits are identified as a threat via habitat degradation. This
project will strengthen the perimeter fence as a barrier to pest incursions; monitor and remove reduce pest
animal populations within the reserve.
Time
frame
4 yrs
10,000
1 yr
76
FTLA – Northern Yarra
Landcare Network, Vic.
Protecting fire affected biodiversity
from invasive blackberry in the
Northern Yarra
Department of Environment
and Conservation, WA
South coast integrated biodiversity
management project
Invasive blackberry is now thriving in the northern Yarra Ranges region following the Black Saturday
bushfires, benefitting from this major disturbance. The weed now threatens the regenerating native
vegetation by smothering bushland and waterways. It also provides harbour for rabbits and foxes, further
exacerbating the threat to recovering biodiversity. The Northern Yarra Blackberry Action Group (part of the
Northern Yarra Landcare Network) runs a small program to assist landowners with their obligations to
control blackberry on private land. This project will add a biodiversity focus to the existing program to more
effectively address the harmful impacts of invasive blackberry on the region’s biodiversity.
This project will address the impact of introduced predators on native fauna in the south coast region of
Western Australia by developing appropriate methods for control of feral cats and integrating these with fox
control in key conservation reserves within the South Coast Macro Corridor coastal corridor. Developing
suitable methods of control for these predators throughout the landscape will provide direct benefits for
land managers and communities in surrounding landscapes by reducing the threat of predation on native
species within reserves, wildlife corridors and neighbouring patches of remnant vegetation. Knowledge
gained through this project will be applied throughout the landscape.
77
230,000
5 yrs
1,450,000
5 yrs
Appendix E: EPBC Act listed threatened species
Updated list of threatened species where predation by foxes is identified as a threat. Noted is
where a recovery plan exists and any noted degree of threat by foxes in either the recovery
plan or the listing information.
Scientific Name
Amytornis barbatus
barbatus
Amytornis modestus
Anomalopus mackayi
Bettongia lesueur lesueur
Bettongia penicillata
ogilbyi
Bettongia tropica
Botaurus poiciloptilus
Burramys parvus
Caretta caretta
Chelonia mydas
Cinclosoma punctatum
anachoreta
Cyclodomorphus
praealtus
Dasycercus cristicauda
Dasycercys hilleri
Dasyornis brachypterus
Dasyuroides byrnei
Dasyurus geoffroii
Dasyurus hallucatus
Dasyurus maculatus
gracilis
Dasyurus maculatus
maculatus (SE mainland
population)
Delma impar
Dermochelys coriacea
Egernia kintorei
Elusor macrurus
Emydura macquarii
signata (Bellinger River,
NSW)
Eulamprus tympanum
marnieae
Geophaps scripta scripta
Heleioporus australiacus
Hoplocephalus
bungaroides
Hylacola pyrrhopygia
Common Name
Threat Status
Recovery
plan
Grey Grasswren (Bulloo)
Vulnerable
no
Thick-billed Grasswren
Five-clawed Worm-skink, Longlegged Worm-skink
Burrowing Bettong (Shark
Bay), Boodie
Vulnerable
no
Vulnerable
no
a threat
Vulnerable
yes
major
Woylie
Endangered
no
a threat
Northern Bettong
Australasian Bittern
Mountain Pygmy-possum
Loggerhead Turtle
Green Turtle
Spotted Quail-thrush (Mt Lofty
Ranges)
Endangered
Endangered
Endangered
Endangered
Vulnerable
Critically
Endangered
yes
no
no
yes
yes
a threat
secondary
Alpine She-oak Skink
Endangered
no
a threat
Crest-tailed Mulgara
Ampurta
Eastern Bristlebird
Kowari
Chuditch, Western Quoll
Northern Quoll
spotted tailed quoll, or yarri
(north Queensland subspecies)
Spot-tailed Quoll, Spotted-tail
Quoll, Tiger Quoll
(southeastern mainland
population)
Striped Legless Lizard
Leatherback Turtle, Leathery
Turtle, Luth
Great desert skink, tjakura,
warrarna, mulyamiji
Mary River Turtle, Mary River
Tortoise
Vulnerable
Endangered
Endangered
Vulnerable
Vulnerable
Endangered
no
no
no
no
no
no
secondary
Endangered
no
Endangered
no
Vulnerable
yes
secondary
Endangered
yes
a threat
Vulnerable
yes
a threat
Endangered
no
Bellinger River Emydura
Vulnerable
yes
major
Corangamite Water Skink
Endangered
yes
a threat
Squatter Pigeon (southern)
Giant Burrowing Frog
Vulnerable
Vulnerable
no
no
Broad-headed Snake
Vulnerable
no
Chestnut-rumped Heathwren
Endangered
no
78
Degree of
threat
a threat
a threat
no
secondary
Threat Status
Recovery
plan
Degree of
threat
Vulnerable
no
a threat
Endangered
no
Endangered
yes
major
Vulnerable
yes
major
Vulnerable
yes
major
Vulnerable
no
Vulnerable
no
a threat
Helmeted Honeyeater
Endangered
no
secondary
Endangered
no
major
Vulnerable
no
a threat
Vulnerable
no
Endangered
no
secondary
Macrotis lagotis
Myrmecobius fasciatus
Natator depressus
Neochmia ruficauda
ruficauda
Guthega Skink
Great Desert Skink, Tjakura,
Warrarna, Mulyamiji
Green and Golden Bell Frog
Yellow-spotted Tree Frog,
Yellow-spotted Bell Frog
Greater Bilby
Numbat
Flatback Turtle
Star Finch (eastern), Star Finch
(southern)
Vulnerable
Vulnerable
Vulnerable
yes
no
yes
major
Endangered
no
Neophema chrysogaster
Orange-bellied Parrot
Critically
Endangered
yes
Vulnerable
no
Endangered
yes
unknown
Endangered
yes
unknown
Endangered
Vulnerable
Endangered
Vulnerable
yes
no
no
no
major
secondary
Endangered
no
Vulnerable
no
Endangered
no
Vulnerable
no
Vulnerable
no
Vulnerable
no
Vulnerable
no
Scientific Name
Common Name
parkeri
Isoodon obesulus
nauticus
Isoodon obesulus
obesulus
Lagorchestes hirsutus
unnamed subsp.
Lagostrophus fasciatus
fasciatus
Leipoa ocellata
(Mt Lofty Ranges)
Southern Brown Bandicoot
(Nuyts Archipelago)
Southern Brown Bandicoot
(Eastern)
Mala, Rufous Hare-Wallaby
(central mainland form)
Banded Hare-wallaby, Marnine,
Munning
Malleefowl
Wopilkara, Greater Stick-nest
Rat
Olive Python (Pilbara
subspecies)
Leporillus conditor
Liasis olivaceus barroni
Lichenostomus melanops
cassidix
Liopholis guthega
Liopholis kintorei
Litoria aurea
Litoria castanea
Notomys fuscus
Notoryctes caurinus
Notoryctes typhlops
Onychogalea fraenata
Pachycephala rufogularis
Parantechinus apicalis
Pedionomus torquatus
Perameles bougainville
bougainville
Perameles gunnii gunnii
Perameles gunnii
unnamed subsp.
Petrogale lateralis
lateralis
Petrogale lateralis
MacDonnell Ranges race
Petrogale lateralis West
Kimberley race
Petrogale lateralis
pearsoni
Dusky Hopping-mouse,
Wilkiniti
Karkarratul, Northern
Marsupial Mole
Itjaritjari, Southern Marsupial
Mole, Yitjarritjarri
Bridled Nail-tail Wallaby
Red-lored Whistler
Dibbler
Plains-wanderer
Western Barred Bandicoot
(Shark Bay)
Eastern Barred Bandicoot
(Tasmania)
Eastern Barred Bandicoot
(Mainland)
Black-flanked Rock-wallaby
Warru, Black-footed Rockwallaby (MacDonnell Ranges
race)
Black-footed Rock-wallaby
(West Kimberley race)
Pearson Island rock-wallaby
79
a threat
secondary
major
Scientific Name
Common Name
Threat Status
Petrogale penicillata
Petrogale xanthopus
xanthopus
Brush-tailed Rock-wallaby
Yellow-footed Rock-wallaby
(SA and NSW)
Vulnerable
Recovery
plan
yes
Vulnerable
no
Pezoporus flaviventris
Western Ground Parrot
Pezoporus occidentalis
Phascogale calura
Philoria frosti
Night Parrot
Red-tailed Phascogale
Baw Baw Frog
Potorous gilbertii
Gilbert's Potoroo
Potorous longipes
Potorous tridactylus
tridactylus
Long-footed Potoroo
Long-nosed Potoroo (SE
mainland)
Pseudemydura umbrina
Pseudocheirus
occidentalis
Pseudomys australis
Pseudomys fieldi
Pseudomys fumeus
Pseudomys
novaehollandiae
Pseudomys oralis
Pseudomys pilligaensis
Pseudomys shortridgei
Rheodytes leukops
Rostratula australis
Sarcophilus harrisii
Setonix brachyurus
Sminthopsis douglasi
Sminthopsis
psammophila
Sternula nereis nereis
Stipiturus malachurus
intermedius
Stipiturus malachurus
parimeda
Stipiturus mallee
Turnix melanogaster
Tympanocryptis
pinguicolla
Uvidicolus sphyrurus
Wollumbinia belli
Xeromys myoides
Zyzomys pedunculatus
Critically
Endangered
Endangered
Endangered
Endangered
Critically
Endangered
Endangered
Degree of
threat
major
no
no
no
no
possible
yes
a threat
yes
a threat
Vulnerable
no
Western Swamp Tortoise
Critically
Endangered
yes
Western Ringtail Possum
Vulnerable
no
Plains Rat, Palyoora
Shark Bay Mouse, Djoongari,
Alice Springs Mouse
Konoom, Smoky Mouse
Vulnerable
yes
Vulnerable
no
Endangered
yes
major
New Holland Mouse, Pookila
Vulnerable
no
a threat
Hastings River Mouse, Koontoo
Pilliga Mouse, Poolkoo
Dayang, Heath Rat
Fitzroy River Turtle, Fitzroy
Tortoise, Fitzroy Turtle, Whiteeyed River Diver
Australian Painted Snipe
Tasmanian Devil
Quokka
Julia Creek Dunnart
Endangered
Vulnerable
Vulnerable
yes
no
no
major
Vulnerable
no
Endangered
Endangered
Vulnerable
Endangered
no
no
no
yes
Sandhill Dunnart
Endangered
no
Australian Fairy Tern
Southern Emu-wren (Fleurieu
Peninsula), Mount Lofty
Southern Emu-wren
Southern emu-wren (Eyre
Peninsula)
Mallee Emu-wren
Black-breasted Button-quail
Vulnerable
yes
major
Endangered
yes
secondary
Vulnerable
no
Endangered
Vulnerable
no
yes
secondary
secondary
Grassland Earless Dragon
Endangered
no
secondary
Vulnerable
no
Vulnerable
no
Vulnerable
yes
a threat
Endangered
yes
possible
Border Thick-tailed Gecko,
Granite Belt Thick-tailed Gecko
Bell's Turtle, Western
Sawshelled Turtle, Namoi River
Turtle, Bell's Saw-shelled
Turtle
Water Mouse, False Water Rat,
Yirrkoo
Central Rock-rat, Antina
80
a threat
major
secondary
a threat
81